Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

Archived Thread

NFT: Anyone else watching and rooting for Tiger?

KingBlue : 3/11/2018 10:53 am
I have to admit I am surprised at his play. He is improving the more he plays. I don't know how much better he can get, but I am intrigued. Honestly, I want him to win today.

I will be watching. Can he do it? What will it do for his confidence? The next 5 weeks (don't know how many tournaments he will play) leading up to the Masters will be must see TV. Watching him on Sunday, wearing red and black, seeking his first tournament win in 5 years will be fascinating.
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
I hope he's in it until the end...  
bw in dc : 3/11/2018 12:36 pm : link
If he wins, that's a real bonus.

But he really needs to show he can play four very competitive rounds.
No  
The 12th Man : 3/11/2018 12:43 pm : link
I hope he shoots a 75.
Canít wait  
Danny Kanell : 3/11/2018 12:47 pm : link
He tees off at 1:50pm on the golf channel, then NBC takes over at 3pm.
RE: RE: One things for sure  
UConn4523 : 3/11/2018 1:05 pm : link
In comment 13858530 KingBlue said:
Quote:
In comment 13858515 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


no one is interested in Tiger anymore



Huh? You may not like him and that is fine, to each his own. But to say no one is interested in Tiger anymore is dumb. TV is surely interested. The galleries at whatever tournament he enters sure tells a different story. How did you reach your conclusion?


Iím joking
Talk to any player on the tour  
gidiefor : Mod : 3/11/2018 1:23 pm : link
Tiger is great for the game of golf. He still puts more sizzle in the game than any other player out there. No one on the tour draws more attention than he does when he's out on the course and contending. No one.
RE: RE: One things for sure  
PhiPsi125 : 3/11/2018 1:25 pm : link
In comment 13858530 KingBlue said:
Quote:
In comment 13858515 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


no one is interested in Tiger anymore



Huh? You may not like him and that is fine, to each his own. But to say no one is interested in Tiger anymore is dumb. TV is surely interested. The galleries at whatever tournament he enters sure tells a different story. How did you reach your conclusion?


Lol, swing and a miss.
I will be watching and rooting for Tiger.  
RDJR : 3/11/2018 1:33 pm : link
I rarely watch non-major tournaments, but Iíll be tuned in today.
I have to admit  
Jints in Carolina : 3/11/2018 1:48 pm : link
as a Phil fanboy, I am rooting for Tiger.
Valspar attendance up 30-35% from previous years just because of Tiger  
Bockman : 3/11/2018 1:55 pm : link
I'll be rooting for him. Otherwise, Sneds is a good 2nd choice.

Anyone but Rose.
RE: Valspar attendance up 30-35% from previous years just because of Tiger  
GiantGolfer : 3/11/2018 3:27 pm : link
In comment 13858777 Bockman said:
Quote:
I'll be rooting for him. Otherwise, Sneds is a good 2nd choice.

Anyone but Rose.


Just curious...why not Rose? Is it just because heís not an American? Justin Rose is one of the true good guys on tour.
Awesome  
The 12th Man : 3/11/2018 3:41 pm : link
He missed his putt on 8 now into the ruff :)
Still got a shot  
Paulie Walnuts : 3/11/2018 4:33 pm : link
If you yell "get in the hole!!!" You should be banned for life from all PGA events
Rooting against him, as always.  
Crispino : 3/11/2018 4:51 pm : link
Iím glad heís back playing, but I hope he never wins again, although he has a better chance to than I thought he would.
He's a massive dickhead  
Greg from LI : 3/11/2018 5:47 pm : link
Fuck that guy. Hope he never wins again.
His game looks really sharp right now.  
GiantGolfer : 3/11/2018 7:34 pm : link
If only he could get 1 more putt to fall today....

Bay Hill next week with another star-studded field, minus FIGJAM. Canít wait for Thursday!
RE: RE: RE: Can't say I  
weeg in the bronx : 3/11/2018 7:51 pm : link
In comment 13858637 M.S. said:
Quote:
In comment 13858600 KingBlue said:


Quote:


In comment 13858597 M.S. said:


Quote:



...but I'm rooting big time for a resurrection of the greatest golfer in the history of the PGA.

I'll be watching!!!



Greater than Jack? Debatable!


That's my opinion, but clearly Tiger/Jack is indeed debatable. I don't have the stats, but I'd be interested who had the higher tournament winning percentage.


In golf, success is measured in the majors. Jack had over 70 top ten finishes in majors during his career. He was top 3 46 times.
Eh, major tournaments is part of the debate but itís not the  
PhiPsi125 : 3/11/2018 8:17 pm : link
end all be all. At this point Iíd still give Jack the edge but he also didnít have the type of competition that Tiger had, didnít have the technology advancements that Tigerís generation had for all players and also didnít have his career derailed by injuries. If Tiger didnít have all these injuries the past 4/5 years, I believe he would have already blown past Jack. But thatís life.
RE: Eh, major tournaments is part of the debate but itís not the  
weeg in the bronx : 3/11/2018 9:24 pm : link
In comment 13859232 PhiPsi125 said:
Quote:
end all be all. At this point Iíd still give Jack the edge but he also didnít have the type of competition that Tiger had, didnít have the technology advancements that Tigerís generation had for all players and also didnít have his career derailed by injuries. If Tiger didnít have all these injuries the past 4/5 years, I believe he would have already blown past Jack. But thatís life.


Majors are played on the most difficult courses against only the best players, it is the only measure in golf. Jack played against better players. Not fields but certainly players. He finished second to Trevino and Watson 8 times. Two of the greatest ever. Watson was good enough to lose in an Open playoff in his 60s while Woods missed the cut (Something Nicklaus didn't do at the Open until he was in his mind forties).
RE: Eh, major tournaments is part of the debate but itís not the  
Jim in Fairfax : 3/11/2018 10:15 pm : link
In comment 13859232 PhiPsi125 said:
Quote:
end all be all. At this point Iíd still give Jack the edge but he also didnít have the type of competition that Tiger had, didnít have the technology advancements that Tigerís generation had for all players and also didnít have his career derailed by injuries. If Tiger didnít have all these injuries the past 4/5 years, I believe he would have already blown past Jack. But thatís life.

Your point about equipment doesnít make much sense. Nicklaus had to play with equipment that was much less forgiving than todayís. Thatís a handicap, not a benefit.

Itís true that there are many more talented players today than in Jackís day. But there were more GREAT players in Jackís day. Look at the all-time greats he had to face in their primes: Player, Palmer, Watson, Trevino, Ballesteros. Michelson is the only player you can say that of with Tiger, and heís on the back end of what Jack faced.

Jim, youíre 100% right.  
Crispino : 3/11/2018 10:29 pm : link
Who was the great player who put the pressure on Tiger when he was winning his majors? Phil, and who else?
Nicklaus had to fight off the Whoís Who of golf immortals to win his 18 majors. Tiger never had to face any of the gameís all time greats. In fact, he never won a single major where he came from behind to win. He played in an era where there was no rival to push him. The fields were stronger in general, but the top tier of the sport after Tiger was relatively mediocre.
The same arguments are made against Federer  
UConn4523 : 3/11/2018 10:39 pm : link
Fact is you really canít compare generations and everything that comes with the changes in sport. Sure thereís competition but Tiger also dealt with being the most popular athlete in the world at one point and all the pressure that comes with it. He dealt with and overcame racism, especially in a basically all white sport with an all white audience. He was responsible for getting Golf to the mainstream.

Jack did play against more greats but I really donít think that means much. Thereís exponentially more Golfers now (because of Tiger I might add) and the talent pool is so deep that itís impossible for any 1 or 2 guys to rise above and consistently win majors let alone be a rival.

When you actually factor in everything, which you have to if you are being fair, heís atleast Jacks equal and in many cases you can argue heís better.
Yes, Jack had to play against the likes of Palmer, Player, Trevino,  
PhiPsi125 : 3/11/2018 10:56 pm : link
and Watson. But after that, the competition back then fell off a cliff. Not even close to what Tiger has to face in every tournament. And Player and Palmer were older than Jack.

Tiger had to face Mickelson, Singh, Els, Goosen, Furyk among many other tour winning golfers. The reality is that the talent pool that Tiger had to compete against was just much better. There were many many golfers that could be good enough to win on any given tournament.

Itís a fun conversation but certainly not cut and dry. Jack may have had faced tougher direct competition but Tiger had more competition on the whole.
This whole debate about who had the tougher competition is laughable.  
GiantGolfer : 3/11/2018 11:08 pm : link
There is no question that Jack played against legends of the game, but Tiger had to go up against 100's of top level golfers, EVERY tournament. Back in Jack's day, they couldn't even get full fields to compete!! It was a different game back then. The talent pool aside from the top players was terrible. Where were all the developmental tours around the world when Jack played? They didn't even exist until the late 80's/early 90's. Any player in a developmental tour has the ability to win on the PGA Tour. Some eventually get there and win, some don't. But the talent level is far superior to Jack's era, just because of sheer numbers of players.



It doesnít matter one bit how good the field was after ...  
Crispino : 3/11/2018 11:27 pm : link
the top tier. It only takes one guy to be there and push you at the end of a tournament. If youíre Tiger, there were very few top tier players to pressure him. Nicklaus knew that Snead (early) , Palmer, Trevino, Player, Watson, Seve, Norman, Faldo were on his heels. All time greats. Tiger had ...Phil? Itís not close as far as who the top ever competition was at the peak of their career.
RE: It doesnít matter one bit how good the field was after ...  
GiantGolfer : 3/11/2018 11:30 pm : link
In comment 13859382 Crispino said:
Quote:
the top tier. It only takes one guy to be there and push you at the end of a tournament. If youíre Tiger, there were very few top tier players to pressure him. Nicklaus knew that Snead (early) , Palmer, Trevino, Player, Watson, Seve, Norman, Faldo were on his heels. All time greats. Tiger had ...Phil? Itís not close as far as who the top ever competition was at the peak of their career.


Agree to disagree. As usual.
Seve, Norman and Faldo turned pro 15 years after Jack had  
PhiPsi125 : 3/11/2018 11:55 pm : link
already been playing. Watson turned pro 10 years after Jack. Palmer was 12 years older than Jack and on the back 9 of his career when Jack was getting it going. Letís stop pretending that Jack had to overcome all of these greats his entire career. Interesting how most of Jacks success came between the end of Arnieís career and before most of the players you mentioned even started golfing.

And just stop, Tiger had many top tier opponents throughout his career. Not just...uh, Phil. And yes, the vastly more difficult field certainly matters.
RE: Seve, Norman and Faldo turned pro 15 years after Jack had  
Eric on Li : 3/12/2018 12:07 am : link
In comment 13859399 PhiPsi125 said:
Quote:
already been playing. Watson turned pro 10 years after Jack. Palmer was 12 years older than Jack and on the back 9 of his career when Jack was getting it going. Letís stop pretending that Jack had to overcome all of these greats his entire career. Interesting how most of Jacks success came between the end of Arnieís career and before most of the players you mentioned even started golfing.

And just stop, Tiger had many top tier opponents throughout his career. Not just...uh, Phil. And yes, the vastly more difficult field certainly matters.


Yeah, I think Tiger's weak competition is overstated. Ernie Els and Mickelson would have been strong contenders in any era and they spanned his entire career, both with a slight headstart. Duval and Vijay had short runs at the top, but they still won a lot of tournaments. If he can add to his victory total the next few years against Spieth and DJ that will be impressive too.
Iím not going to do the work for you, but...  
Crispino : 3/12/2018 11:09 am : link
go to Wikipedia and look up who finished second in Tigerís majors, and then look at who finished second in Jackís majors. Itís not close in terms of the guys Jack beat. Then go and look at who won the majors where Jack came in second, and compare those guys to the players who won majors Tiger competed in but didnít win. That should open some eyes.
Crisp  
UConn4523 : 3/12/2018 11:13 am : link
you really can't look at it that way. There's less guys now and for the foreseeable future that won't look like all time greats because the talent level across the board is better. To do what Jack and Tiger did in 2018 and beyond means you will have to be infinitely better than the rest of the pack - its too difficult now.

You can ignore that if you want, but I think you are way off.
No. I've never liked Tiger.  
SFGFNCGiantsFan : 3/12/2018 11:14 am : link
He does make the sport more compelling though for sure.
RE: Crisp  
Jim in Fairfax : 3/12/2018 11:45 am : link
In comment 13859722 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
you really can't look at it that way. There's less guys now and for the foreseeable future that won't look like all time greats because the talent level across the board is better. To do what Jack and Tiger did in 2018 and beyond means you will have to be infinitely better than the rest of the pack - its too difficult now.

You can ignore that if you want, but I think you are way off.


Yes, the bench is deeper now. Thereís a longer season, a lot more tournaments, and a LOT more money. That provides the opportunity for a lot more guys to be professional golfers for the long term.

But thatís a double edged sword. Over 100 guys made over $1M on tour last year. This weekends Valspar, a lower level tournament that most of the top players skipped for a bigger purse in Mexico, still payed out over $6M. You could come in 30th or 40th and win $30-$40K. Rinse and repeat over the season and you made 7 figures.

The result is a lot of good players who donít feel compelled to go for greatness. In Jackís time, you won or you went home. You couldnít stay on tour unless you at least were scoring a lot of top 10s. It drove a lot more players to be great.

That said, Mcilroy and Spieth already have 4 and 3 majors respectively. If they keep focus, they could be all time greats. Weíll see.
that's such shit logic  
UConn4523 : 3/12/2018 11:47 am : link
the same logic that Josh Rosen won't work hard because his dad is rich. I can just as easily say that when you taste success or make money you want more of both.
RE: that's such shit logic  
Jim in Fairfax : 3/12/2018 1:17 pm : link
In comment 13859779 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
the same logic that Josh Rosen won't work hard because his dad is rich. I can just as easily say that when you taste success or make money you want more of both.

Aw, shucks.

Big difference in sacrifice. As a football player you spend maybe 30-40 days a year on the road. Even during the season, players can spend more time with their family then the average worker does.

Golfers live on the road. Itís a grind of a lifestyle. After awhile, a lot of players choose to spend less time on road.
Itís just something you cannot prove  
UConn4523 : 3/12/2018 1:45 pm : link
so they wanted it more in the 70s but not now? Have fun convincing anyone with that argument.

Players today learn the game at a younger age, which increases the talent pool and makes it harder to be much better than your competition. The international game has also blown up the last couple of decades. That is why Tiger doesnít have 2 or 3 rivals who are golf legends.
Tiger didnít have a worthy rival to put pressure on him.  
Crispino : 3/12/2018 7:48 pm : link
He played in an era of a lot of good, but not great players. Nobody charged Tiger, put a little fear in him that heíd get caught. Tiger never won a major where he had to come from behind in the last round. And thatís because there was no great player to push him.
Haha  
UConn4523 : 3/12/2018 8:04 pm : link
Yeah ok man. I get you donít like him but you are making things up. I donít understand why a rival is needed to prove how good one is. Instead of 1 or 2 rivals he had an entire field of more talented golfers than what Jack was up against...irrefutable. But somehow playing against a stronger field isnít as hard as just 1 or 2 guys, makes perfect sense.

The fact that Tiger dominated in an era where golf was more readily available at a younger age producing more high quality players with no one doing it since is evidence enough that you are, at the very least, not being very honest in this debate.

Iím fine saying Jack and Tiger are equals, putting certain aspects of the game in favor for each of them, but to totally dismiss Tiger because he didnít play against another golf legend is ridiculous.

Based on that logic Federer isnít he greatest because he didnít play the majority of his career against greats like Connors, Becker, Sampras and prime Agassi?
RE: Tiger didnít have a worthy rival to put pressure on him.  
GiantGolfer : 3/12/2018 8:05 pm : link
In comment 13860671 Crispino said:
[quote] He played in an era of a lot of good, but not great players. Nobody charged Tiger, put a little fear in him that heíd get caught. Tiger never won a major where he had to come from behind in the last round. And thatís because there was no great player to push him.

There is so much flawed, ignorant logic about that statement that it just makes me laugh. You are bordering on Stan status with your blind hatred for anything Tiger. Well done sir.

RE: Tiger didnít have a worthy rival to put pressure on him.  
Jim in Fairfax : 3/12/2018 8:33 pm : link
In comment 13860671 Crispino said:
Quote:
He played in an era of a lot of good, but not great players. Nobody charged Tiger, put a little fear in him that heíd get caught. Tiger never won a major where he had to come from behind in the last round. And thatís because there was no great player to push him.

Thatís just whack logic. So, when Tiger was behind in majors he didnít try hard because it was someone like Michelson or Singh in front instead of Nicklaus or Palmer?

Good gosh, however did Nicklaus ever find it within himself to mount a charge when guys like Tom Kite or Tom Weiskopf were leading?
Please just stop acting like Jack had to overcome all of golfs  
PhiPsi125 : 3/12/2018 8:36 pm : link
greatest players at the same time. Again, most of his success came on the downside of Palmerís career and before many of the other golfers you guys listed. What does that tell you? So his main competition during his prime was Trevino and Player. You can throw Casper in there too. If you donít think that Tiger had similar, if not more (but definitely more), competition than that then you just arenít being genuine.

Tiger had plenty of players to push him. Or maybe he is just that damn good. Me thinks itís both.
RE: Please just stop acting like Jack had to overcome all of golfs  
Jim in Fairfax : 3/12/2018 8:58 pm : link
In comment 13860726 PhiPsi125 said:
[quoteAgain, most of his success came on the downside of Palmerís career and before many of the other golfers you guys listed. [/quote]
Not sure how you figure that with Palmer. 3 of his 7 majors and 14 of his 19 other top 5 finishes occurred during Nicklausís pro career.
Context is everything. Palmer is 11 years older than Jack  
PhiPsi125 : 3/12/2018 9:31 pm : link
and was well into his pro career when Jack turned pro.

Yes, he won a lot when Jack was playing. However, the reality is that Palmer won the majority of tournaments before and during the first 3/4 years of Jacks career. By the time Jack getting it going, Palmer was winding down.

The point is, prime Jack didnít have to compete with prime Palmer.
RE: Context is everything. Palmer is 11 years older than Jack  
Jim in Fairfax : 3/12/2018 9:58 pm : link
In comment 13860774 PhiPsi125 said:
Quote:
and was well into his pro career when Jack turned pro.

Yes, he won a lot when Jack was playing. However, the reality is that Palmer won the majority of tournaments before and during the first 3/4 years of Jacks career. By the time Jack getting it going, Palmer was winding down.

The point is, prime Jack didnít have to compete with prime Palmer.

Did Palmerís prime start before Jack hit the scene? Sure. But most of his prime was during Jackís career. 3 of 7 majors, and 35 of his 62 overall victories.

Palmerís prime started late, in large part because he served 3 years in the coast guard.
And all 5 of Philís majors  
UConn4523 : 3/12/2018 10:27 pm : link
came during Tigers prime. Soooooo....
RE: And all 5 of Philís majors  
Jim in Fairfax : 3/12/2018 10:41 pm : link
In comment 13860834 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
came during Tigers prime. Soooooo....

Sure.

And beyond Palmer:
7 of Playerís 9
All 8 of Watsonís
All 6 of Trevinoís
4 of Ballesterosís 5
Els' prime was with Tiger's and he frequently "pushed him" at majors  
Eric on Li : 3/12/2018 10:43 pm : link
Hell, he came in 2nd place in 3/4 majors in 2000 (which was the period of time where Tiger did the Tiger slam and tied for 6th in the 01 masters).

Here's a list of Tiger major wins with Els' in top 6.

US Open 00 - 2nd
British Open 00 - 2nd
Masters 01 - 6th (tied)
Masters 02 - 5th
British Open 06 - 3rd
PGA Champ 07 - 3rd

Els' also won the British Open in 2012 with Tiger tying for 3rd (his closest Major loss in a decade). But yeah, Phil is Tiger's only great contemporary and nobody good was ever on his heels.
RE: RE: And all 5 of Philís majors  
UConn4523 : 3/12/2018 10:57 pm : link
In comment 13860847 Jim in Fairfax said:
Quote:
In comment 13860834 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


came during Tigers prime. Soooooo....


Sure.

And beyond Palmer:
7 of Playerís 9
All 8 of Watsonís
All 6 of Trevinoís
4 of Ballesterosís 5


Great! Still doesnít prove anything, itís a cherry picked biased tale on being the one and only reason player X would be better ham player Y. Conveniently, no one has commented on Federer. Whatís the difference?
RE: RE: And all 5 of Philís majors  
PhiPsi125 : 3/12/2018 11:00 pm : link
In comment 13860847 Jim in Fairfax said:
Quote:
In comment 13860834 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


came during Tigers prime. Soooooo....


Sure.

And beyond Palmer:
7 of Playerís 9
All 8 of Watsonís
All 6 of Trevinoís
4 of Ballesterosís 5


Ballesterosí majors came in Jacks prime? His first major was in 1979 when Jack was nearly 40 years old. Watson? Seven of his eight majors came in the late 70s into the early 80s. Again, Jack was nearly 40 years old or older. Thatís prime age for a golfer? Just stop.
RE: RE: RE: And all 5 of Philís majors  
Jim in Fairfax : 3/12/2018 11:34 pm : link
In comment 13860864 PhiPsi125 said:
Quote:

Ballesterosí majors came in Jacks prime? His first major was in 1979 when Jack was nearly 40 years old. Watson? Seven of his eight majors came in the late 70s into the early 80s. Again, Jack was nearly 40 years old or older. Thatís prime age for a golfer? Just stop.

I suppose he was past his prime. But past his prime Jack still won 4 majors when Seve was winning his 5. And 6 while Watson was winning his 8.
RE: RE: RE: RE: And all 5 of Philís majors  
PhiPsi125 : 3/13/2018 12:04 am : link
In comment 13860896 Jim in Fairfax said:
Quote:
In comment 13860864 PhiPsi125 said:


Quote:



Ballesterosí majors came in Jacks prime? His first major was in 1979 when Jack was nearly 40 years old. Watson? Seven of his eight majors came in the late 70s into the early 80s. Again, Jack was nearly 40 years old or older. Thatís prime age for a golfer? Just stop.


I suppose he was past his prime. But past his prime Jack still won 4 majors when Seve was winning his 5. And 6 while Watson was winning his 8.


Nice stat. Still donít know what that has to do with the fact that Jack didnít have to play against a lot of these players for a large chin knot his career.

Yes, Jack played against some great competitors at different points in his career in a very small field. Tiger also played against some great competitors while also competing with a vastly larger field of good to great golfers. In my opinion, thereís a lot more pressure with what Tiger had to play with, in terms of competition.

But honestly, we can debate this forever. People's dislike for Tiger tends to cloud their view of his place in history IMO. What I didnít know is that Jack was generally disliked in the beginning of his career because Palmer was such a beloved golfer and Jack was taking over the throne. Clearly that changed as time went on but I still found that interesting.
Large chin knot? Lol  
PhiPsi125 : 3/13/2018 12:05 am : link
Clearly I meant ďlarge chunk of his careerĒ
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner