Tiger Woods will never regain golf dominance

[Chas]

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

I'd agree with that. Again, I haven't read the majority of the posts here. Just consider that there's two sides. Don't become the anti-fanboys (anyone, not directed at you H). Don't become fanboys either.

That is a good point.  I've been called a "Tiger hater" on this forum, mostly by those who haven't bothered to read my posts on the guy.  Considering his behavior towards his wife and family contemptible does not make me a hater of everything about the golfer.  In the context of the game of golf I'm in certainly a fan of the man, as I'm sure you know.  This is not a matter to debate, it is a fact.

This is a golfing forum, not a marital ethics forum, so most people (like yourself) are putting much greater emphasis on TW as a golfer than on TW as a husband/father/businessman/etc when they are posting about him.  That is as it should be and it doesn't make you a fanboy.

To me, a fanboy is one who has completely lost the ability to objectively judge TW as a golfer (including his current situation and prospects) because they have become infatuated with him.  Another result is that their judgement of other professional players has become highly distorted - they are looking through a certain lens.  This is a common phenomenon in sports, nothing unusual about that, especially regarding someone as remarkable a sportsman as Tiger.  To call all other players vanilla golfers is a sure sign of fanboyhood imho.

You once thought I considered you a fanboy because you took personally a post I made soon after one of yours in which I used the word.  Perhaps I should have made it clear then that I wasn't referring to you - not at all. In my view you have a fairly balanced view of the guy.

RichF: on you post #203, I couldn't agree with you more.  I would like to do a Fisher's exact test (2 X 2 statistical analysis method, makes no assumption about data distribution) using as variables, 1) my estimation of Fanboy vs. Not Fanboy, and 2) age 25 years.   I'm confident the P value would be down there around 0.001 or less.

I would run the test using a few different age cutpoints, the results would be very interesting.  I'd probably take a look at 18 years, 22 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years and 60 years, something like that.

[willgolf]

i have 100 euro on that he wins 2 or more majors this year. fact and he will

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by willgolf

i have 100 euro on that he wins 2 or more majors this year. fact and he will

Where did you place that bet? What odds did you get?

[alo1984]

Quote:

I can understand that ..... but then please don't impute opinions to me that I do not hold.  Thanks a bunch.

No opinions were imposed.  Again, I simply responded to a single post.  Perhaps you should be more clear about your opinions if you don't want them taken the wrong way.  You are most welcome.

Quote:

I was taking the mick (TW as Superman).  It is hard for me not to so so, my bad.  10 demerits for me.

Forgiven

Quote:

I repeat, I'm not saying TW wasn't a superstar - he was the brightest in the firmament - but right now he's more of a black hole.  Let's hope he starts burning bright again.

I actually never once said that you didn't think Tiger was a superstar.  I said that you are not giving him credit where credit is due, which is true.

Quote:

So here we have it.  Everyone else is "a bunch of vanilla golfers", and only your hero Tiger has any flavor.  That is my definition of a boyfan, and it really makes me wonder how much you truly appreciate the game of golf as it is played professionally.

See, now YOU are imputing opinions on me.  It is true that the PGA doesn't have any real exciting stars.  The ratings have proven that.

I actually have not once stated my opinion about what I think of Tiger the person or the golfer, other than to say that he has done a tremendous amount for the game.  That is what I think is so comical about your response to my posts.  You have taken to calling me a boyfan and saying that I don't appreciate the game simply for giving Tiger Woods credit for advancing the game.

Truth be told, I don't care for Tiger the person.  I have stated numerous times that his behavior on the course is embarrassing and someone with his influence should be a more appropriate example to the public.  I especially don't like Tiger's life decisions that we've heard so much about.  I also don't care for the Buddhist stuff that he's into.

That being said, I think anyone who tries to discount what Tiger has done for the game is verging on stupidity or at best denial for whatever reason.  Like I said, you have actually  imposed an opinion on me that is not at all true.  I watch pretty much every golf tournament on television whether Tiger is playing or not.  I especially love to watch Tom Watson, Fred Couples, Charles Howell III, among others.  I am fascinated by the history of the game as well.  IMO knowing the history of the game makes Tiger's contributions even more obvious.

So you see, it is actually possible to know and respect the game while also acknowledging the truth about one of its superstars.

Quote:

On that at least we can agree.

Judging from the single post that I commented on it doesn't seem that we do agree, but I will assume that you didn't portray everything you believe about golf and life in one single paragraph.

[alo1984]

Originally Posted by Chas 

This is a golfing forum, not a marital ethics forum, so most people (like yourself) are putting much greater emphasis on TW as a golfer than on TW as a husband/father/businessman/etc when they are posting about him. 

When talking about Tigers possible rebound, why would anyone use his opinion of Tigers marital ethics to formulate an opinion?  Whether you like the way Tiger handled his marriage makes no difference to his chances of returning to form.

Originally Posted by Chas 

To call all other players vanilla golfers is a sure sign of fanboyhood imho. 

Given the context in which I said it that is absolutely untrue.  Ratings are down and interest in golf has diminished since Tiger started to struggle.

Obviously there is nothing vanilla about Ricky Fowler or Ian Poulter.  Perhaps I should have used another word, but the point should have been easy enough to take.

Originally Posted by Chas 

RichF: on you post #203, I couldn't agree with you more.  I would like to do a Fisher's exact test (2 X 2 statistical analysis method, makes no assumption about data distribution) using as variables, 1) my estimation of Fanboy vs. Not Fanboy, and 2) age 25 years.   I'm confident the P value would be down there around 0.001 or less.

I will assume that since I am only 27 you will continue to view me as a fan boy simply for that reason.  That is very scientific and objective.

[Chas]

I don't think that you understand the point of running a 2 X 2 type of analysis.  Have you ever run one btw?   To put it simply, it is a test of the null hypothesis when the data are in the form of 2 categorical variables.  In this case we are considering the possible effect of age, which is a continuous variable so the analysis could be done differently certainly.  Maybe a Wilcoxon rank sum on age after stratification by FB status.  I prefer non-parametric methods for this sort of data - how about you?

I consider that someone who sincerely believes that all players other than Tiger Woods are plain vanilla, a highly derisive term, is not showing good judgement in the matter and is in the later stages of FB'hood.

That is just my opinion, yours will differ of course.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Chas

I consider that someone who sincerely believes that all players other than Tiger Woods are plain vanilla, a highly derisive term, is not showing good judgement in the matter and is in the later stages of FB'hood.

That is just my opinion, yours will differ of course.

I disagree, vanilla isn't negative, it's neutral.  To me it means none of them stand out compared to Tiger.  Perform an experiment, line up photos of the Worlds Top 10 ranked golfers and have 1000 random people off the streets in the U.S. attempt to name them, the most recognized would be Tiger, Phil would be a distant 2nd and the rest would rank very far behind Phil.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I disagree, vanilla isn't negative, it's neutral.  To me it means none of them stand out compared to Tiger.  Perform an experiment, line up photos of the Worlds Top 10 ranked golfers and have 1000 random people off the streets in the U.S. attempt to name them, the most recognized would be Tiger, Phil would be a distant 2nd and the rest would rank very far behind Phil.

WTF?!? You forgot the smileys. And that's really all I can say about that.

I also enjoyed this nugget by some totally other dude (alo1984):

I especially don't like Tiger's life decisions that we've heard so much about.  I also don't care for the Buddhist stuff that he's into.

Not being a fan of someone's religion is okay now?

[alo1984]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I also enjoyed this nugget by some totally other dude (alo1984):

Not being a fan of someone's religion is okay now?

Of course.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by alo1984

When talking about Tigers possible rebound, why would anyone use his opinion of Tigers marital ethics to formulate an opinion?  Whether you like the way Tiger handled his marriage makes no difference to his chances of returning to form.

Given the context in which I said it that is absolutely untrue.  Ratings are down and interest in golf has diminished since Tiger started to struggle.

Obviously there is nothing vanilla about Ricky Fowler or Ian Poulter.  Perhaps I should have used another word, but the point should have been easy enough to take.

I will assume that since I am only 27 you will continue to view me as a fan boy simply for that reason.  That is very scientific and objective.

1) I agree, that was my point.   Distinctions need to be made (between on-course and off-course behavior).

2) OK, now I have a better understanding of what you mean by "vanilla" but I certainly don't agree, far from it.  It still comes across as totally dismissive of the strong field of players, both U.S. and international, in the game today.  Look I miss the old Tiger very much (perhaps almost as much as you), there hasn't been a player like him to watch since Jack Nicklaus in my view.  I've watched Tiger up close at Torrey Pines quite a few times over the years and he is a remarkable athlete and an extraordinary talent.  But I don't find the game less compelling to follow even tho' Tiger is going through a difficult period.  We agree that we want to see him back (let's not forget that ....), I miss his magic especially around the greens.  But don't you think that there's plenty of wonderful golf to watch right now, even tho' Tiger hasn't won in more than a year?

3) The economy has been in the tank for a while now, I don't think you can ascribe the problems of the golfing industry to the decline of Tiger's golf game - not exactly.

4)  As to being 27 ............ I WISH I COULD BE 27 AGAIN. And I'll tell you one good reason why - - - - - - because I'd start playing the game of golf more seriously than I did at that age. I basically stopped playing in my early 20's and only took it up again at around 50, when I had to give up tennis for medical reasons.

You young guys are lucky.  Golf is a joy to play the world over, and you can play into your dotage (don't ask me how I know ...... ).

Now where the heck did I put that putter .......

[Gioguy21]

**can i please get paid for the original bet ?**

[Zeph]

Tiger can drive the ball all over the place, one shot left one shot right. It's got to be a clubface issue, possibly from his old swing where he used them actively. Once you got a swing path going, it usually sticks, you won't have one swing going 5º in-out and one 5º out-in. The clubface can be 5º closed on one swing and 5º open on the next. He used to be able to play like this and work the ball, but it seems to be a problem now. Everyone says he swings harder on the course than on the range. Maybe his old habits with the hands take over when he swings hard, and he brings the whole course into play.