Wi lays the smack down!

[iacas]

Let's be honest and say Tiger knows what he's doing here, too. He's looking for something that works for him but can't afford to be tied to the stupid "Get Stacked!" infomercial image of S&T; that most people unfortunately have. To most of the golfing fraternity, it'd be a bit like him showing up on the first tee of the Masters with a ****ing Hammer driver in his bag. So in that sense Foley is a pretty good cutout.

Pretty much.

And everyone would have been okay with that if Foley didn't have to go out there and make up shit. If he had just said "I've learned a lot and I'm appreciative of the time they've spent with me" it would have been fine.

For example..the whole Foley showing footage of O'Hair's swings to P&B...is; that public knowledge or something only a small group of people are aware of or were aware of that it was happening? Was it done so in a secretive type fashion?

Why does that matter? It happened. What do you want them to do - send out a press release any time someone talks to someone else on a PGA Tour driving range?

It wasn't done in secret, which is why so many people know. Foley would walk up to Andy and Mike while they were working with their guys, often several times per day, and ask them question after question, show them video after video, etc. It wasn't done in secret and "small group of people" depends on your definition.

I brought up the infomercials because those would have needed P&B; approval, meaning they were fine with their system being packaged and sold that way.

Uhhh... no, you can't make that assumption. And the infomercials aren't the topic here.

[majorchamp]

ok, that is all I wanted to know.

If I was P&B;, I would be pissed if Foley was eating up that much time of my day while I am working with "my" students.

Well, I don't think this topic is really worth discussing anymore...where is it going to get anyone? Foley will keep teaching Tiger, P&B; will keep teaching S&T;, Foley will probably pick of more students now, so will P&B.; Just some peoples feelings got hurt in the process. Oh well.

[Rexx]

So Charlie telling the truth is unprofessional, but Foley's comments weren't? I see.

Did I say anything about Foley's comments? No. Please put the straw man away.

Telling the truth does not equal professionalism. Throwing your fellow golfers "under the bus" does not equal professionalism, especially when they have done nothing more than say they are no longer working with Mike & Andy. He could have said that a lot of people have had success with S&T.; That he wouldn't be where he is without it. That the man leading the tour in GIRs is using S&T.; That they teach more golfers on tour than anyone. Etc.

Everything you said up to that point is fine. It's your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone (or anyone) who doesn't agree with you isn't looking at it objectively.

Charlie was never specifically asked about Baddeley and Weir. Therefore, I find it unwarranted and unprofessional to bring them into the conversation in such a bad light. He jumped the gun on the question being asked of him, as if he was just looking for a reason to go on a rant.

And you know my reference to being "objective" had nothing to do with Baddeley and Weir's success/failure with S&T;, but the 'enthusiastic support' that Wi's comments were met with on this forum.

Were they professional? Again, he was simply pointing out facts. Is it "unprofessional" to point out that Tiger's putting has gone to shit and that, at times this year, he couldn't find the fairway with a compass, map, GPS, and a trained guide? I don't think so, but I'm a fan of calling a spade a spade. I'm a scientist, and if something is basically fact, it's not wrong to cite it. Yes, I get that there's context, but

Stating facts does not equal professionalism. Obviously, we have different standards of what that word means, so I guess we'll just have to disagree about it. But there are more proper ways to speak about fellow professionals who are struggling. When most professionals speak of Tiger they say something like, "He's got a lot on his mind and he's understandably been struggling with his game a bit. Given time, he'll get it turned around and probably resume his position as the best player in the world." It's not, "Maybe Tiger should just go back to sleeping around... that's obviously when he was at his best."

I find both of these lines from the article unprofessional: "He won three times with Andy and Mike, and also took him to inside top 20 in the world. And if that's not good enough for Aaron, well, it is what it is." "If you look at -- they're not here this week, so maybe they should be working with Andy and Mike."

Refusing to say Foley's name is "childish"? Maybe. Or maybe he's just so disgusted by Foley that he doesn't want to say his name. If you feel strongly about someone saying their name is a powerful thing (strongly isn't just negative - people in love say their partner's name and it makes them feel good, and the opposite is true of people that strongly dislike others).

C'mon, surely you can do better than that. Hard to take someone's (Charlie's) arguments seriously if he's gonna resort to those tactics. You want to argue "facts" and then play these psychological games. And if you want to know why I don't find all the viewpoints objective, it's for defending stuff like this. I've seen your posts about other subjects... there's no way you would defend this behavior if it wasn't about S&T.;

He was asked about "some people have started and left" and even if he didn't say their names, people would know who he was talking about. So what's the harm in being clear about the fact that only TWO "people" (barely enough to make it plural) have left and who they are?

No, he wasn't. He was being asked about how long he has been with S&T; and then cut off the interviewer. The interviewer did preface the question with the fact that some people (unnamed) have left S&T;, but we don't know the intentions of the interviewer after that.

And we know two wrongs don't make a right, but Charlie didn't lie. He didn't make things up. He talked about how good his coaches are and shared some facts. He didn't even say "Tiger should work with Mike and Andy if he actually wants to get better" or anything like that. Foley's comments were far more of a "wrong" than what Charlie said.

Not that you're necessarily directing this at me, but I have never defended Foley's comments. And I'm not sure anyone on this board ever has, but I don't read every single post. The subject is Charlie's comments, and that's what we're discussing. He may have had valid points, but they were clouded by his delivery.

[iacas]

Did I say anything about Foley's comments? No. Please put the straw man away.

It's not a straw man. It's incredibly relevant and is part of the story.

Telling the truth does not equal professionalism.

It doesn't "equal" unprofessionalism either.

Throwing your fellow golfers "under the bus" does not equal professionalism

You say "throwing them under the bus" like it's a fact. It's not. That's your opinion. My opinion is that he didn't "throw anyone under the bus." I think the only way you can "throw someone under the bus" with a fact is if the fact is a secret. OWGR and wins and money earned aren't secrets. Their improvement under his coaches is not a secret.

He could have said that a lot of people have had success with S&T.;

He was asked about Aaron and Mike , so he answered that question specifically. He didn't mention them out of the blue. He was asked about them (the "people" who had left).

Charlie was never specifically asked about Baddeley and Weir.

By name, no, but he

was asked about Aaron and Mike. Maybe he should have refused to say their names, too - then you could be even more upset with him.

Therefore, I find it unwarranted and unprofessional to bring them into the conversation in such a bad light.

See, again, I don't see citing the facts of how his instructors improved the play of the students they had while they had 'em as "in such a bad light."

Stating facts does not equal professionalism.

Again, nor does it "equal" unprofessionalism.

But there are more proper ways to speak about fellow professionals who are struggling.

"They were poor ballstrikers, they improved, won money and tournaments, and had a high OWGR under my coaches, and they've fallen off since." That's basically what he said. Oooh, so harsh. So mean, those facts...

FWIW, Johnny Miller said Ian Poulter was a terrible ballstriker the other day during the coverage. Was that unprofessional? Nope. It was accurate, pertinent, and a fact. And he wasn't even asked a question by anyone.

When most professionals speak of Tiger they say something like, "He's got a lot on his mind and he's understandably been struggling with his game a bit.

And you're trying to tell me that mentioning Foley is a straw man??? C'mon... Tiger's not the same at all and you know it.

C'mon, surely you can do better than that. Hard to take someone's (Charlie's) arguments seriously if he's gonna resort to those tactics.

Oooh, he didn't say a guy's name. Look, you predetermined that you didn't like what Charlie did, so you view every little piece of it through those glasses. Oooooh, he wouldn't say a guy's name. What a tactic! How rude! How uncouth and unprofessional, not saying a guy's name out loud!! Boooo!!!

There's no way you would defend this behavior if it wasn't about S&T.;

Bull. I've always appreciated players who speak their minds and hated it when the press and fans go from whining about how everyone just gives robotic, boring answers to leaping on the first guy who doesn't give a robotic, boring answer. I've got a long history and plenty of comments on record supporting players saying what they want.

I wish more players would do it, but every time they do, without fail, people heap a bunch of crap on them and make them regret speaking their minds. It's ridiculous and it's directly responsible for the incredibly dull, robotic answers we always get.

No, he wasn't.

Look, you're factually wrong there. He was asked the question. Additionally, you clearly just read the text transcript and didn't hear the audio or, seemingly, understand how interviews work... He was asked about the "people" who left and how long he'd been using it. He didn't cut someone off in the middle of an unrelated question and start talking about Aaron and Mike. He was asked.

The subject is Charlie's comments, and that's what we're discussing.

Foley's comments are directly related. They're part of the same exact story. They're the context.

Thanks for the discussion. I know you're not going to change your mind and I suspect you know the same about me. So... it is what it is. If you're ready to move on, so am I. Story's pretty old now anyway.

[walk18]

Ok Rexx, I'll admit you never mentioned Foleys comments. But Wi was asked about Baddely and Weir leaving. When the question was prefaced with "some guys have left S&T;" it's very obvious who that refers to, and it is indeed part of the question. I guess in the end I really don't have any problem with what he said, but others seem to. To each their own. There's really nothing else that I have to say on the topic. As mentioned a few posts ago, everyone will move on.

[newtogolf]

You say "throwing them under the bus" like it's a fact. It's not. That's your opinion. My opinion is that he didn't "throw anyone under the bus." I think the only way you can "throw someone under the bus" with a fact is if the fact is a secret. OWGR and wins and money earned aren't secrets. Their improvement under his coaches is not a secret.

I think you're walking a fine line here. It's a fact and public knowledge that Tiger has admitted to being an unfaithful spouse and sex addict but if someone in talking about the tour decided to mention that it's their opinion Tiger is struggling because of emotional fallout from his failed marriage and sex addiction it would be considered a cheap shot. Charlie is not paid like Miller to be an analyst and provide commentary on other tour players so he should keep his opinions to himself unless he wants to stir up controversy.

[majorchamp]

I think you're walking a fine line here. It's a fact and public knowledge that Tiger has admitted to being an unfaithful spouse and sex addict but if someone in talking about the tour decided to mention that it's their opinion Tiger is struggling because of emotional fallout from his failed marriage and sex addiction it would be considered a cheap shot. Charlie is not paid like Miller to be an analyst and provide commentary on other tour players so he should keep his opinions to himself unless he wants to stir up controversy.

I don't know...seems like every article I read about Tiger has a mention buried in the middle of "Since that November car crash and Tiger's admission of infidelities leading to his divorce" then tying that to his poor showings in tournaments.

I realize that isn't the Tour themselves saying that, sorry if that is specifically what you meant.

[iacas]

I think you're walking a fine line here. It's a fact and public knowledge that Tiger has admitted to being an unfaithful spouse and sex addict but if someone in talking about the tour decided to mention that it's their opinion Tiger is struggling because of emotional fallout from his failed marriage and sex addiction it would be considered a cheap shot.

Really? I don't think it would be considered a cheap shot. Not at all. It might not be a wise thing to do (Tiger's put millions of dollars into the pockets of his fellow pros), all things considered, but

I wouldn't call it a cheap shot. Besides, why Tiger is struggling is not a matter of "fact." It's likely to be true, but you can't say it's a "fact." The only "fact" you could say in this case is "Tiger's scoring average is higher than in previous years. His win total is lower. He's not finishing as high in tournaments, or on the money list." Those would be facts.

Charlie is not paid like Miller to be an analyst and provide commentary on other tour players so he should keep his opinions to himself unless he wants to stir up controversy.

Again, he was asked and gave facts, not opinions.

Plus, what mc said.

[newtogolf]

I don't know...seems like every article I read about Tiger has a mention buried in the middle of "Since that November car crash and Tiger's admission of infidelities leading to his divorce" then tying that to his poor showings in tournaments.

It is. I haven't heard anyone on the tour cite Tigers specific shortfalls, they generalize or skip right over it to say he'll be back.

[iacas]

It is. I haven't heard anyone on the tour cite Tigers specific shortfalls, they generalize or skip right over it to say he'll be back.

Yes, and it would be an opinion as to why he's struggling, not a fact.

And Tiger's not the topic here. Let's get back to it, or if it's done, let it be done.

[newtogolf]

Besides, why Tiger is struggling is not a matter of "fact." It's likely to be true, but you can't say it's a "fact." The only "fact" you could say in this case is "Tiger's scoring average is higher than in previous years. His win total is lower. He's not finishing as high in tournaments, or on the money list." Those would be facts.

It's semantics, we could say it's not fact that the reason their performance suffered was because they went away from S&T.; Tour players shouldn't be commenting on other tour players unless they want to create some controversy. If he was calling them out, then he should admit it and own it.

[melchior]

It's semantics, we could say it's not fact that the reason their performance suffered was because they went away from S&T.; Tour players shouldn't be commenting on other tour players unless they want to create some controversy. If he was calling them out, then he should admit it and own it.

This is the point of yours that's hardest for me to understand. Why *can't* they comment on their peers? If two people are working in an office building together, can they not talk about each other? Especially if the other is doing something that the first doesn't appreciate? It's essentially the same deal here, two peers should be able to talk about each other, especially if specifically asked about it.

[iacas]

It's semantics, we could say it's not fact that the reason their performance suffered was because they went away from S&T.;

You're missing the point. Charlie cited stats, which are factual. The only "opinion" is that maybe they should have stuck with it or should come back, which isn't a harsh opinion by any stretch. Charlie didn't comment on why their performance suffered. He simply pointed out that the facts are such and such.

Tour players shouldn't be commenting on other tour players unless they want to create some controversy. If he was calling them out, then he should admit it and own it.

a) Disagree that Tour players shouldn't comment on other tour players.

b) He wasn't calling them out.

This is the point of yours that's hardest for me to understand. Why *can't* they comment on their peers? If two people are working in an office building together, can they not talk about each other? Especially if the other is doing something that the first doesn't appreciate? It's essentially the same deal here, two peers should be able to talk about each other, especially if specifically asked about it.

Yup.

This thread's getting old. Unless someone has something new to say (PM it to me), it's closed.