2012 AT&T National at Congressional Country Club Discussion Thread - Page 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by brocks 

My favorite part of his rant was, "When was the last time you heard Tiger say something interesting?", and the dummy host going along with him. What the host should have said was, "Well, when was the last time a reporter asked him an interesting question that had anything to do with golf?"

It makes you wonder what any of this part of the rant really had to do with the AT&T National tournament and Tiger's performance?  He just wanted to go out of his way to ask people to stop following/rooting for Tiger.  He just about wanted to say He's not even interesting!  Why not root for somebody who says interesting stuff?  Remember Bubba's car chase?  It seems hard for him to fathom people existing who just want to see great golf without necessarily caring what the person is like outside of their athletic arena.

To the main point, the only time I find Tiger uninteresting in interviews is when he's losing (and he's very short with answers) and/or he's being asked confrontational type questions.  Tiger comes off as a highly intellectual/analytical guy to me, and when he feels inclined to go in depth about his game or golf in general, he is at least worth listening to, if not "entertaining."  Other people may feel the complete opposite, to each their own.

I kept getting a kick out of Feinstein repeatedly saying "I have NO problem with people wanting to watch Tiger."  Like he was doing the fans a favor by allowing them that.  He said it several times.  Gee, thanks Feinstein.  I'm glad you think it's okay for us to watch Tiger, in spite of the horrible person he is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

1. He said the tournament was "terrible" and called it a "complete disaster." Something about buses being seven miles away and people paying to ride them.

 

That was the closer of two lots.  The other was 18 miles away I think.

Not sure what that has to do with Tiger...

Quote:

Originally Posted by walk18 

That 9 iron shot is just another example of why it doesn't matter that "the new generation is so good today and they're not intimidated by Tiger". He wins because he is able to hit shots that other golfers simply can't, and he does it when it matters most.

This.  Look at what other players have done.  Kaymer ruined his game trying to learn how to hit a draw for the Masters.  Rory says he can't play in wind because he hits the ball high.  Tiger, OTOH, has learned to hit every shot in the bag.  The only one with close to the number of shots Tiger has is Bubba.  The difference there is that Tiger uses the different shots to optimize his results while Bubba uses them to entertain himself.

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

 

If his 9i broke on the tree - by the rules of golf he is able to replace it - as long as he has a replacement club at the course.  Being it's Tiger Woods... I'm sure Nike has a replacement set waiting in the wings should he break a club.  Thus, as dramatic as you would like to make that shot on the 18th... It would have been with a 9i created to his exact specification(s).

 

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-04/#4-3

 

There is nothing in the rules that requires the replacement club to be at the course - only that the replacement occur without undue delay.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonTheSavage 

Is this guy trying to be to Tiger what Skip Bayless is to LeBron James???

Bayless has more class (or less lack of class) than Feinstein, because he isn't just administering punishment because LeBron refused to do a book with him.  Feinstein is just full of himself - probably explains why he is so fat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

Feinstein is a drama queen.  The show he co-hosts on XM Mad Dog Radio (Beyond The Brink) has been horrible since he joined.  He prides himself on being a hard ass on highly controversial topics such as college athletics and the NCAA, BCS, and Tiger.  He's like a slightly less obnoxious, more intelligent Miceli. 

No.  He is every bit as obnoxious as Miceli.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

 

That's taking it a bit out of context.  For 15 holes, it was a helluva tournament with BVP and Tiger both playing solid and sometimes extremely clutch golf.  BVP saw Tiger's best and then stuck it sometimes 6-8 feet closer on 2 or 3 holes.  And the final bogey was a result of him having to go for the hole-out from off the green.  He probably could have made par there if he needed par to force a playoff.  

 

In any event, my point is that BVP didn't choke the tournament away like Feinstein implied.  He played very good for a great portion of the round.  Tiger played better.  It's not like he had a 3-4 stroke lead and Tiger shot +1 to win the tournament.  BVP made a couple mistakes.  That's not giving it away.

How so?  I didn't say that the entire round was a choke job, only that once Van Pelt seemingly got his nose in front, he crashed.  

It reminded me of Hildebrand at last year's Indy 500.  Last turn to glory, he's thinking about how that milk is going to taste, how he's going to make that turn into the winner's circle and stuffs it in the wall.

He pulled and/or fatted the six iron.

He made a poor decision with his third, especially given that Tiger had airmailed his third over the green.  Why not play a running chip out to the right of the flag?  If he did that, he'd have been putting for birdie from 20 or 30 feet, with Tiger off the back for his birdie 'putt'.

He damn near chipped his fourth over the green and down the hill past Tiger.

I think that on two separate occasions on the 16th, Van Pelt thought about beating Woods instead of playing the shot.

Then on 17, he airmails his second over the green.  Yes, it was a flyer lie, but why not guard against going long like you did with a six iron from 240?  Whatever logic he used to underclub on 16 was completely forgotten on 17.

And, as I said, Tiger deserves credit for minimizing his own mistakes on 16 by not trying to do too much.  My point was that Van Pelt played three very poor shots in a row when he seemed to have an advantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uttexas 


Agree. Mark Cuban summarizes the Skip Bayless/ Feinstein approach really well in this interview.

"You have the presumption that people care what you have to say & they don't..."

That was classic, and it's spot-on. This is what the Skip Bayless's & John Feinstein's of the world have to understand - the athletes, the ones that actually perform, don't care what these guys say. They know it's all just noise. Like later on in that interview when Cuban said to Bayless whether LBJ actually thought that Bayless was the reason he finally was able to win a title, and Bayless essentially said yes. My Gawd dude, get over yourself. You write your opinion, and think it has some kind of mystical power - it doesn't. It's just an opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by walk18 

I've been thinking about this post for awhile, and it's actually an interesting thought as it relates to amateurs. Obviously Tiger can go at it full force now, but for the rest of us, we always hear "don't overswing", or "stay within yourself". Is that kind of advice given assuming swing flaws, which most of us have?? I know if I go at it too hard, I tend to pull or hook it, and I think most of us could benefit from dialing it back a little. Maybe not though?

I'd wager that even when he's swinging hard, Tiger is swinging within himself. Other than in do-or-die situations, I would bet he's got something in reserve that he might bring out if it were a long drive situation rather than a golf tournament. The guy can get 190 yards out of a pitching wedge, so I don't think we saw all he's got last weekend. :-)

Also, there's a difference between swinging hard and overswinging. I find I have the best results when I swing hard, but not out of my shoes. Trying to hold back too much leads to bad technique.

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

 

If his 9i broke on the tree - by the rules of golf he is able to replace it - as long as he has a replacement club at the course.  Being it's Tiger Woods... I'm sure Nike has a replacement set waiting in the wings should he break a club.  Thus, as dramatic as you would like to make that shot on the 18th... It would have been with a 9i created to his exact specification(s).

 

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-04/#4-3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtleback There is nothing in the rules that requires the replacement club to be at the course - only that the replacement occur without undue delay.

I understand this... I quoted Rule 4-3.  My point was it is Tiger Woods.  He would surely have a replacement ready for him - before he had to hit that approach on the 18th.  The other user was trying to paint a 'What if' scenario that would've never happened by asking what Tiger would've had to do if his 9i broke/bent on that tree... And had to hit an 8i... And how that may have forced a different outcome for the tournament.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeph 

I'm sure Tiger could've hit a soft 8 iron or hard PW and still won the tournament. He won my two shots in the end by the way, after Bo bogied the 18th.

Yeah, he could have made par hitting a 4-iron there. It just happens that the 9I was the "perfect" club.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber 

He would surely have a replacement ready for him - before he had to hit that approach on the 18th

Quite probably not. Just because it's Tiger it doesn't mean he carries spares with him.

The tour vans are usually gone by the weekend.

But of course he could have borrowed one from the proshop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brocks 

That segment bordered on abuse of the elderly. Cuban totally owned Bayless. These reporters act like they are experts, and everytime Cuban asked him a question that would have required actual basketball knowledge to answer, Bayless looked like a deer in the headlights.

I agree. I know next to nothing about basketball and it was obvious to me that Bayless didn't have a clue.

I thought the best part of that was when Cuban said "we didn't have the athletes Oklahoma had" and Bayless kept repeating that "LeBron just didn't play well" while Cuban kept pointing out that they MADE that happen, it didn't just happen.

OKC should have perhaps done more game planning based on Dallas' gameplan the previous year. It appears that MIA figured out OKC's gameplan after the first game, and that was all she wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brocks 


That segment bordered on abuse of the elderly. Cuban totally owned Bayless. These reporters act like they are experts, and everytime Cuban asked him a question that would have required actual basketball knowledge to answer, Bayless looked like a deer in the headlights.

Couldnt agree more and I enjoyed every second of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

I agree. I know next to nothing about basketball and it was obvious to me that Bayless didn't have a clue.

 

I thought the best part of that was when Cuban said "we didn't have the athletes Oklahoma had" and Bayless kept repeating that "LeBron just didn't play well" while Cuban kept pointing out that they MADE that happen, it didn't just happen.

 

OKC should have perhaps done more game planning based on Dallas' gameplan the previous year. It appears that MIA figured out OKC's gameplan after the first game, and that was all she wrote.

To OKC's defense... They did get the ball out of LBJ's hands in game 5 (elimination game)... Just like the Mavs did in '11. But it didn't work out as well for OKC... As Miami's 3 point assassin also known as Mike Miller was on fire.  When Cuban's Mavs played the Heat in the '11 finals... LBJ dished off to an open shooter when doubled, but they didn't hit those open jumpers.  Miller was clutch in game 5 (7 of 8 from downtown) - and part of the reason why the 'King' finally has a crown.

OKC lost because Miami's defense and transition game was better too in '12 vs. '11.