or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee - Page 4  

post #55 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

Why can Chamblee have an opinion on Tiger that affects his career but we can't have an opinion on Chamblee and call for his job.  I don't like him or his methods for getting attention.  As a viewer, in a key demographic, of the GC I'd prefer he not be given a platform to spew his garbage from, that's my opinion.

Sure, you can call for his job ... but I carefully read Brandel's comments - he gives Tiger praise and also questions his ethics. I would have written the same article with a different slant but Brandel is Brandel. I think he is encouraged to be the growling dog, because if anyone can get away with it, a former player has more credibility.

 

Brandel once bothered me, too, but I was a bit of a TIger homer -- I like to see player greatness. Tiger has lost me, and I don't mind hearing Brandel going after him in an honest manner - and I think Brandel's comments are honest to him -- there was sufficient evidence of Tiger's acts that would cause one to do more than scratch their head and say "Whassup with that?" If there was not, I think most of us would be after Brandel.  The fact that many of us accept Brandel's comments as valid says a lot about Tiger's actions during the year. Personally, I think Tiger looked frustrated and pressured, and when that happens, you may take certain actions that you later regret. It's human nature.

post #56 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post
 

I like Brandel's grading system, you can get as high as an A++ because you have a hot wife :-P  

I think this says it all.

 

Dufner's bride is hot and All-America looking :-*

 

Tiger's GF is hot yet nasty looking :censored: ... that nastiness gives Tiger away..

 

 

 

:-$

post #57 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

Suing Brandel is ridiculous. It won't happen, because any lawyer good enough to get Tiger as a client will undoubtedly know that Brandel's actions weren't libelous.

 

It's worth pointing out, perhaps, that Steinberg studied law (I don't think he ever practiced it per se) at University of Illinois.

post #58 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
 

Sure, you can call for his job ... but I carefully read Brandel's comments - he gives Tiger praise and also questions his ethics. I would have written the same article with a different slant but Brandel is Brandel. I think he is encouraged to be the growling dog, because if anyone can get away with it, a former player has more credibility.

 

Brandel once bothered me, too, but I was a bit of a TIger homer -- I like to see player greatness. Tiger has lost me, and I don't mind hearing Brandel going after him in an honest manner - and I think Brandel's comments are honest to him -- there was sufficient evidence of Tiger's acts that would cause one to do more than scratch their head and say "Whassup with that?" If there was not, I think most of us would be after Brandel.  The fact that many of us accept Brandel's comments as valid says a lot about Tiger's actions during the year. Personally, I think Tiger looked frustrated and pressured, and when that happens, you may take certain actions that you later regret. It's human nature.

I'm more in the Phil camp than Tiger.  I respect and appreciate what Tiger has done for the game of golf.  I don't care what he's done in his personal life, it has no impact on me whatsoever nor anyone else unless they are friends or family of Tiger and Elin.

 

Brandel can say anything he wants about Tigers swing, coach, putting or approach to the game but when you question a persons ethics you step over the line, especially in golf.  I'm surprised you buy into Brandel's smokescreen.  Giving a person praise before you stab them in the back is what someone does when they want to look unbiased, it's a ploy.  You see it all the time in politics, it inauthentic and a method used by Brendel and Miceli to avoid simply being dismissed as Tiger haters.

 

If Brandel has issues with the ethics, he should contact the USGA, PGA Tour and Tournament Rules committees and find out why he was just penalized strokes and not DQ'ed or suspended.  Tiger followed the rules and accepted the penalties, he's likely not the only one to be assigned stroke penalties this year but he's the most famous so Brandel puts the cross-hairs on him because no one cares that the guy ranked 120 (random number) had some rules violations too.

 

I'd like to see Tiger sue Brandel, even if he loses it might make Brandel think twice when he writes an article that puts into question a golfers ethics and integrity.

post #59 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
 

Sure, you can call for his job ... but I carefully read Brandel's comments - he gives Tiger praise and also questions his ethics. I would have written the same article with a different slant but Brandel is Brandel. I think he is encouraged to be the growling dog, because if anyone can get away with it, a former player has more credibility.

 

Brandel once bothered me, too, but I was a bit of a TIger homer -- I like to see player greatness. Tiger has lost me, and I don't mind hearing Brandel going after him in an honest manner - and I think Brandel's comments are honest to him -- there was sufficient evidence of Tiger's acts that would cause one to do more than scratch their head and say "Whassup with that?" If there was not, I think most of us would be after Brandel.  The fact that many of us accept Brandel's comments as valid says a lot about Tiger's actions during the year. Personally, I think Tiger looked frustrated and pressured, and when that happens, you may take certain actions that you later regret. It's human nature.

 

The problem with what Brandel said is that he drew a DIRECT LINE between Tiger's actions and his own little story about how HE cheated.  That was not a "wassup with that" comment.  The crossed out 100 replaced with an F is an implicit (and maybe explicit) charge of cheating.

post #60 of 762
Brandel should worry less about Tiger and more about his own marriages-Plural. I think he's been through three wives now.
post #61 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Brandel should worry less about Tiger and more about his own marriages-Plural. I think he's been through three wives now.

Probably because he critiques them as he does Tiger
post #62 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Brandel is really, really good at his current job.  Maybe he leans a little too far towards the Limbaugh/O'Reilly style for a lot of people's liking - he wasn't very subtle in saying he thinks Tiger cheated** - but he creates buzz, and that's good for his employers.

** I don't care that he gave Tiger an F because of his controversies, but he flat-out called him a cheater, and I don't think that is really fair at all.
Well said. That's pretty much exactly what I wanted to say :D
post #63 of 762

I'm glad that Chamblee said this.

 

For a start, it triggered the "How dare you, we'll sue" reflex from Tiger's camp. Now, what other Nike sponsored athlete does that call to mind?

 

Whether or not you agree with Chamblee's conclusions - you'll probably agree that there is no shortage of commentators who would not be willing to publicly state that opinion of Tiger. That's not a healthy situation. Unless of course you think that health is all about outward appearances...

 

Chamblee, intentionally or unintentionally, perhaps even for the worst of motives, is helping bring a bit of balance to golf coverage.

post #64 of 762

One of the better assessments I have read. Tiger obviously is not a cheater. But he could have handled things better, especially at the Masters.

 

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/bunker-mentality/woods-guilty-being-ignorant-obtuse-unprofessional-not-cheating-143239450.html

 

 

But is Chamblee right? Will 2013 be remembered as much for Woods' brush with officialdom as his five Tour wins and returning to the lofty spot of world number one? “I can’t remember another year when it’s happened like this," said Woods himself about his brush with rules officials.

Bunker Mentality decided to look back at his big blunders of the year:

 

- His most contentious moment of the year enveloped him at the Masters in April when he saw a ball clip a pin before dropping back into the water. Woods should have dropped the ball from where he had hit or on line of entry, but opted to go back a few yards to play the shot. He later boasted that he dropped it two yards back on purpose to enable him to control the distance better. He was handed a two-shot penalty. Many experts said he should had been tossed out of the tournament.

Our verdict: Ignorant, but not guilty.

 

- During the Abu Dhabi Championship in January, Woods decided he was entitled to take a drop from a plugged lie on a desert course that is more bunker than grass in the Gulf region. He did so without consulting a referee and was later deemed to have called it wrong.

Our verdict: Ignorant: but not guilty.

 

- Only a few weeks after the Masters came golf's fifth Major in the form of the Players' Championship. He hooked a drive into some water before listening to his playing partner Casey Wittenberg's advice on where he should drop the ball. Not his greatest moment, but he looked away in anguish after the shot leaving Wittenberg as the only reliable source on where to drop.

Our verdict: A bit more suspicious, but again not guilty.

 

- Then came the BMW Championship in Chicago when he apparently protested his innocence by berating rules officials after being walloped with a two-shot penalty after the ball moved when he plucked a twig away from it. He was shown footage of the incident, but refused to accept the punishment with good grace.

Our verdict: Immature and unprofessional, but again not guilty.

 

Some will wonder if he is willing to cheat on his wife, would he be willing to cheat on his scorecard? Woods has been the victim of a set of circumstances beyond his control, but there are only too many ready to chastise Woods because they do not like his persona.

There is a more likely explanation, at least in part. He has more run-ins with rule officials simply because he plays more errant shots than he used to, and therefore ends up in places that aren't fit for golf balls. That is just a natural consequence of an elongated career.

The sad thing is that he would have increased his stature immeasurably had he had withdrawn from the Masters in April rather than play on when it was obvious the rules were being bent to keep him in. Walking away would have made him look like the bigger man, and probably rehabilitated his image almost completely in the eyes of all but a few die-hard haters.

Instead, he chose to ignore the glaringly obvious fact that any other player in the field would almost certainly have been disqualified in the same circumstances. If you are going to claim the reward of staying in the tournament when you probably should have headed home, you are going to risk the ire of commentators such as Chamblee calling you out on it.

 

But that doesn't make it cheating. In the final analysis, Woods seems to be single-minded, irritable, ill-tempered and unprofessional at times, but there are others playing golf who are as bad as Woods. Calling him a cheat is melodramatic. And wrong.

post #65 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

The sad thing is that he would have increased his stature immeasurably had he had withdrawn from the Masters in April rather than play on when it was obvious the rules were being bent to keep him in. Walking away would have made him look like the bigger man, and probably rehabilitated his image almost completely in the eyes of all but a few die-hard haters.

Instead, he chose to ignore the glaringly obvious fact that any other player in the field would almost certainly have been disqualified in the same circumstances.

I completely agree with everything above that is not in bold and I said as much back then.  (I found it: http://thesandtrap.com/t/66225/the-2013-masters-tiger-drop-penalty-and-fallout/0_30#post_832838)

 

But he's wrong about it being "obvious" that the rules were being bent and that any other player would have been DQ'd.  Based on the information given to us and the timeline, you have to be making assumptions that they weren't totally truthful with us as to what transpired to say that anybody else would have been DQ'd.

 

Further, not only would any other player have probably not been DQ'd, but any other player probably would never have been penalized at all, because any other player isn't interviewed on TV after every round like Tiger is.  (There are a few ... Phil, Rory, and maybe a half dozen others, but most of them are not interviewed on live TV)

post #66 of 762
Yes to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Further, not only would any other player have probably not been DQ'd, but any other player probably would never have been penalized at all, because any other player isn't interviewed on TV after every round like Tiger is.  (There are a few ... Phil, Rory, and maybe a half dozen others, but most of them are not interviewed on live TV)
post #67 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

The sad thing is that he would have increased his stature immeasurably had he had withdrawn from the Masters in April rather than play on when it was obvious the rules were being bent to keep him in. Walking away would have made him look like the bigger man, and probably rehabilitated his image almost completely in the eyes of all but a few die-hard haters.

Instead, he chose to ignore the glaringly obvious fact that any other player in the field would almost certainly have been disqualified in the same circumstances.

I completely agree with everything above that is not in bold and I said as much back then.  (I found it: http://thesandtrap.com/t/66225/the-2013-masters-tiger-drop-penalty-and-fallout/0_30#post_832838)

 

But he's wrong about it being "obvious" that the rules were being bent and that any other player would have been DQ'd.  Based on the information given to us and the timeline, you have to be making assumptions that they weren't totally truthful with us as to what transpired to say that anybody else would have been DQ'd.

 

Further, not only would any other player have probably not been DQ'd, but any other player probably would never have been penalized at all, because any other player isn't interviewed on TV after every round like Tiger is.  (There are a few ... Phil, Rory, and maybe a half dozen others, but most of them are not interviewed on live TV)

 

Yep.  Tiger was ultimately condemned by his own words.  95% of the field would have gone unpenalized in the same situation.

post #68 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

 

 

- Then came the BMW Championship in Chicago when he apparently protested his innocence by berating rules officials after being walloped with a two-shot penalty after the ball moved when he plucked a twig away from it. He was shown footage of the incident, but refused to accept the punishment with good grace.

Our verdict: Immature and unprofessional, but again not guilty.

 

 

Don't understand this verdict. If you think that Tiger, bent over his ball, couldn't see what the long lens camera showed everyone else - then you need to say so. "Bad attitude" doesn't quite cover it.

 

Or, are we supposed to cut Tiger some slack on the basis that most players in the field wouldn't have been filmed moving their ball in the woods?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Yep.  Tiger was ultimately condemned by his own words.  95% of the field would have gone unpenalized in the same situation.

That might be true. But if it is, it would only be logical to let that influence your opinion of the other 95% of the field - not your, or my, or Brandel's opinion of Tiger.

post #69 of 762
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

The sad thing is that he would have increased his stature immeasurably had he had withdrawn from the Masters in April rather than play on when it was obvious the rules were being bent to keep him in. Walking away would have made him look like the bigger man, and probably rehabilitated his image almost completely in the eyes of all but a few die-hard haters.

Instead, he chose to ignore the glaringly obvious fact that any other player in the field would almost certainly have been disqualified in the same circumstances.

 

Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

I completely agree with everything above that is not in bold and I said as much back then.  (I found it: http://thesandtrap.com/t/66225/the-2013-masters-tiger-drop-penalty-and-fallout/0_30#post_832838)

 

But he's wrong about it being "obvious" that the rules were being bent and that any other player would have been DQ'd.  Based on the information given to us and the timeline, you have to be making assumptions that they weren't totally truthful with us as to what transpired to say that anybody else would have been DQ'd.

 

Further, not only would any other player have probably not been DQ'd, but any other player probably would never have been penalized at all, because any other player isn't interviewed on TV after every round like Tiger is.  (There are a few ... Phil, Rory, and maybe a half dozen others, but most of them are not interviewed on live TV)

 

The infraction was not just caught by what Tiger said in his presser. That is what forced them to act. They knew about the possible infraction beforehand ( http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-drop-masters-2013-inside-story ), but they were "cavalier" about it and chose not to even address it with Tiger before he finished his round.  That was why and how they came up with the convoluted (and correct) ruling to allow him to stay in the field.

 

Tiger's admission in the press conference might actually be what saved his butt because the officials realized they had screwed up. If it was another player and they had found out about the infraction after the fact and the other player had incorrectly signed his score card, he would have been gone. It turned out to be a very complex issue, and I think that Tiger could have made it all go away by just withdrawing. I am sure he was frustrated because I think it can be posited that, if his ball had not hit that pin, he probably would have birdied the hole and may very well have won the Masters. But in the end, the whole thing was precipitated by Tiger being careless and breaking the rules, and that is why I believe he would have been better off just going home.

post #70 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

 

The infraction was not just caught by what Tiger said in his presser. That is what forced them to act. They knew about the possible infraction beforehand ( http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-drop-masters-2013-inside-story ), but they were "cavalier" about it and chose not to even address it with Tiger before he finished his round.  That was why and how they came up with the convoluted (and correct) ruling to allow him to stay in the field.

 

Tiger's admission in the press conference might actually be what saved his butt because the officials realized they had screwed up. If it was another player and they had found out about the infraction after the fact and the other player had incorrectly signed his score card, he would have been gone. It turned out to be a very complex issue, and I think that Tiger could have made it all go away by just withdrawing. I am sure he was frustrated because I think it can be posited that, if his ball had not hit that pin, he probably would have birdied the hole and may very well have won the Masters. But in the end, the whole thing was precipitated by Tiger being careless and breaking the rules, and that is why I believe he would have been better off just going home.

 

You're either misremembering or stating your opinion as a fact yet again (that "any other player… would have been gone"). Tiger signed his scorecard. He wasn't given the penalty until the next morning (Saturday morning). Had the same thing happened to another player, the Rules would still be the same, and you have no basis for stating that "any other player would have been gone" except your opinion and distaste (despite declaring the opposite) for Tiger Woods.

post #71 of 762
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

 

The infraction was not just caught by what Tiger said in his presser. That is what forced them to act. They knew about the possible infraction beforehand ( http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-drop-masters-2013-inside-story ), but they were "cavalier" about it and chose not to even address it with Tiger before he finished his round. That was why and how they came up with the convoluted (and correct) ruling to allow him to stay in the field.

 

Tiger's admission in the press conference might actually be what saved his butt because the officials realized they had screwed up. If it was another player and they had found out about the infraction after the fact and the other player had incorrectly signed his score card, he would have been gone. It turned out to be a very complex issue, and I think that Tiger could have made it all go away by just withdrawing. I am sure he was frustrated because I think it can be posited that, if his ball had not hit that pin, he probably would have birdied the hole and may very well have won the Masters. But in the end, the whole thing was precipitated by Tiger being careless and breaking the rules, and that is why I believe he would have been better off just going home.

 

Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

You're either misremembering or stating your opinion as a fact yet again (that "any other player… would have been gone"). Tiger signed his scorecard. He wasn't given the penalty until the next morning (Saturday morning). Had the same thing happened to another player, the Rules would still be the same, and you have no basis for stating that "any other player would have been gone" except your opinion and distaste (despite declaring the opposite) for Tiger Woods.

 

 

Really, you have to stop. I do not have a "distaste" for Tiger Woods. I think he is the best thing to happen to professional golf since Arnold Palmer. And I didn't misremember anything. In fact, I posted a link to an article about what really happened, maybe you should read it.

post #72 of 762

I know "misremember" is technically a word.  But since Roger Clemens used it, it just doesn't sound right anymore.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
This thread is locked  
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee