or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Rocco Mediate's story about Tiger Woods.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rocco Mediate's story about Tiger Woods. - Page 4

post #55 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

It was in the book he did with Feinstein called You've Got to Be Kidding Me.  Let's see, he was living with his back therapist in a hotel during the 2008 US Open while still married.  Seems like a pretty broad hint to me.  Subsequently he divorced his wife and married the back therapist.  

Which brings up an interesting question, which is worse?  Repeatedly betraying your wife on a purely physical level as Tiger did, or betraying your wife on both a physical and emotional level as Rocco did?  

Neither of them have clean hands, but Tiger is excoriated and Rocco is Everyman.  That is about as blatant a double standard as one could think of.
I don't think it's a double standard ... Rocco's just under the radar. Nobody pays any attention to him so they don't care. Whereas tiger has a relatively minor war of words with another golfer and it makes CNN.

I'm sure the people out there who hate tiger because of his marital transgressions AND like Rocco IN SPITE of his (meaning they actually knew about it before now) are very, verrrrry few and far between.
post #56 of 110

You guys are cracking me up. Comparing Rocco's transgressions to Tiger's are like comparing their golf careers. 

post #57 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TourSpoon View Post

You guys are cracking me up. Comparing Rocco's transgressions to Tiger's are like comparing their golf careers. 

 

Then that makes it a double-standard.  Or is Tiger the only scumbag because he didn't later marry one of his mistresses?

post #58 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TourSpoon View Post

You guys are cracking me up. Comparing Rocco's transgressions to Tiger's are like comparing their golf careers. 

In my book, infidelity is infidelity, once a spouse cheats the trust and bond are broken so the number of times and partners are less relevant to me.  I know some people might prefer a spouse cheat one time with multiple partners rather than one partner multiple times, but none of that imo changes the character of the person cheating. 

post #59 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

 

Then that makes it a double-standard.  Or is Tiger the only scumbag because he didn't later marry one of his mistresses?

 

How? They both did it. That's like saying winning one golf tournament is the same as winning a major. Both won, just one did it on a bigger stage! 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

In my book, infidelity is infidelity, once a spouse cheats the trust and bond are broken so the number of times and partners are less relevant to me.  I know some people might prefer a spouse cheat one time with multiple partners rather than one partner multiple times, but none of that imo changes the character of the person cheating. 

 

We don't have to agree on this. Many have mended relationships and have had the trust restored on the one partner scenario, but when the cheater has slept with multiple porn actresses and the like, it could be a smidgen harder to forgive. Again, it was just a bigger and grander stage.  


Edited by TourSpoon - 5/20/13 at 11:51am
post #60 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TourSpoon View Post

How? They both did it. That's like saying winning one golf tournament is the same as winning a major. Both won, just one did it on a bigger stage!

 

I think a better analogy would be "cheating on your girlfriend" versus "cheating on your wife."

 

The former is a regular PGA Tour event. The latter is a major.

post #61 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

I think a better analogy would be "cheating on your girlfriend" versus "cheating on your wife."

 

The former is a regular PGA Tour event. The latter is a major.

 

And winning multiple majors is a whole other level of greatness! 

post #62 of 110

And how many other tour Pro's have won this particular major?  A whole bunch.  We seem to forget about that, like Woods was the only one ever.

post #63 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

And how many other tour Pro's have won this particular major?  A whole bunch.  We seem to forget about that, like Woods was the only one ever.

 

Right, which was more to my point.  The only real differentiating factors we know about is that Rocco married his mistress.  But if we talk about frequency and quantity of partners, we don't really know anything about it.  

 

It reminds me of the general concept/tendency for people to assume that the first time a person is caught doing something is the first time they've done it.  For example, a person gets caught stealing, cheating, lying or whatever, and the person catching them instinctively assumes that was the first act of it's kind.  My point is that simply because Rocco later married his mistress doesn't mean we can assume she was the only one, ever.  She might be, but who knows?  

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd bet money that Tiger "wins" this particular contest in that he had many more acts of infidelity.  I just can't see a ton of women throwing themselves at the hunk-o-man that is Rocco Mediate, but you never know.

post #64 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

And how many other tour Pro's have won this particular major?  A whole bunch.  We seem to forget about that, like Woods was the only one ever.

 

But how many have 14?  Majors that is. 

post #65 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

Don't get me wrong, I'd bet money that Tiger "wins" this particular contest in that he had many more acts of infidelity.  I just can't see a ton of women throwing themselves at the hunk-o-man that is Rocco Mediate, but you never know.

 

This is more to my original tongue in cheek point. It would be like if your wife slept with one person at the office versus every guy at the office. Some guys would say it doesn't matter if she slept with one or if she was passed around as infidelity is infidelity, but from the spouses point of view it may require a different psychological healing process. 

 

It would be "Oh my god you slept with Jim" versus "Oh my god you slept with Jim, Ted, Bill, Tom, Frank, Harry, Larry, Fred, Dave, Gary, and Steve". The latter may be harder to take. 


Edited by TourSpoon - 5/20/13 at 12:44pm
post #66 of 110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TourSpoon View Post

 

It would be "Oh my god you slept with Jim" versus "Oh my god you slept with Jim, Ted, Bill, Tom, Frank, Harry, Larry, Fred, Dave, Gary, and Steve". The latter may be harder to take. 

I nearly choked on my lunch hahaha. 

post #67 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TourSpoon View Post

 

This is more to my original tongue in cheek point. It would be like if your wife slept with one person at the office versus every guy at the office. Some guys would say it doesn't matter if she slept with one or if she was passed around as infidelity is infidelity, but from the spouses point of view it may require a different psychological healing process. 

 

It would be "Oh my god you slept with Jim" versus "Oh my god you slept with Jim, Ted, Bill, Tom, Frank, Harry, Larry, Fred, Dave, Gary, and Steve". The latter may be harder to take. 

To each their own, some would prefer their spouse have one night stands with multiple partners (it's just sex, argument) compared to being seriously involved with one person.  I know a few women that didn't mind their husbands getting a happy ending at a strip club but would go ballistic if their husband had a mistress. 

post #68 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

 

Right, which was more to my point.  The only real differentiating factors we know about is that Rocco married his mistress.  But if we talk about frequency and quantity of partners, we don't really know anything about it.  

 

It reminds me of the general concept/tendency for people to assume that the first time a person is caught doing something is the first time they've done it.  For example, a person gets caught stealing, cheating, lying or whatever, and the person catching them instinctively assumes that was the first act of it's kind.  My point is that simply because Rocco later married his mistress doesn't mean we can assume she was the only one, ever.  She might be, but who knows?  

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd bet money that Tiger "wins" this particular contest in that he had many more acts of infidelity.  I just can't see a ton of women throwing themselves at the hunk-o-man that is Rocco Mediate, but you never know.

And I take this one step further ... people also act as if the person who was never caught doing something has never done it.  This is true about cheating on spouses just like it's true about athletes who take PEDs.  I choose not to get too up in arms over the guys we learn bad things about (except the real defiant a-holes like Rafael Palmeiro and Lance Armstrong - those guys can suck it) because we don't know anything about the "clean" guys we are comparing them to.

 

I also choose not to judge people's character based on infidelity either.  People make mistakes - of which infidelity is, absolutely, a large one - but I don't necessarily think that those mistakes need to define that person.

post #69 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TourSpoon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

Don't get me wrong, I'd bet money that Tiger "wins" this particular contest in that he had many more acts of infidelity.  I just can't see a ton of women throwing themselves at the hunk-o-man that is Rocco Mediate, but you never know.

 

This is more to my original tongue in cheek point. It would be like if your wife slept with one person at the office versus every guy at the office. Some guys would say it doesn't matter if she slept with one or if she was passed around as infidelity is infidelity, but from the spouses point of view it may require a different psychological healing process. 

 

It would be "Oh my god you slept with Jim" versus "Oh my god you slept with Jim, Ted, Bill, Tom, Frank, Harry, Larry, Fred, Dave, Gary, and Steve". The latter may be harder to take. 


Hey a cheater is a cheater. One or many. Most do more than one, we only know about Rocco's one and nobody cared to crucify him. I don't know that being cheated on matters on how many. I have experienced in both so it really just pisses you off either way. If the media hyped my wives cheating to everyone in the free world I might be a little more upset maybe.

 

You cannot differentiate in this case........unless it was a contest, and in that case, Tiger again is victorious.

post #70 of 110

News flash -

 

Pro golfers are normal people.

 

Meaning, just as many of them cheat, lie, steal...or any other negative act..as the rest of us.

 

So for me to even care, let alone judge, what a pro does outside the ropes...and further, to weigh into a 'Well one cheated on his girlfriend & the other his wife therefore Tiger is worse'  debate is inane.

post #71 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleygolfer View Post


Hey a cheater is a cheater. One or many. Most do more than one, we only know about Rocco's one and nobody cared to crucify him. I don't know that being cheated on matters on how many. I have experienced in both so it really just pisses you off either way. If the media hyped my wives cheating to everyone in the free world I might be a little more upset maybe.

 

You cannot differentiate in this case........unless it was a contest, and in that case, Tiger again is victorious.

 

Which is really the essence of this thread. Compared to Tiger no one really cares whether it's on or off the course. After the interview I cared a little less because he just seemed star-struck about the whole autograph thing. I don't blame Tiger either because if he wrote something snappy, who is to say it won't show up in some auction, be used for someone else's benefit, or be taken out of context down the road. It just kind of came off as sour grapes. 

post #72 of 110

He is a pompous, self-indulged ass but I don’t watch golf to see how friendly the players are to each other.  Tiger is not obligated to appease Rocco’s multiple requests.  Hell, he should be flattered Tiger acknowledged him at all.  Bottom line…Tiger is the most captivating and riveting athlete in sports today.  His competitive edge does not come from whispering sweet nothings in his competitors ears nor does it come from breaking bread with them outside the ropes. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Rocco Mediate's story about Tiger Woods.