Top 10 shots taken AT Tiger this year

[mvmac]

Thought this was funny and shows just how different Tiger's world has changed in the past 2 years.
Instead of the best 10 shots Tiger hit this year TGC did an article on the 10 Best Verbal Bullets he's had to deal with in 2011

[Lofty Lefty]

The one about the tipping was pretty funny, true or not. Again I am surprised at #1, in the way that the word arsehole is censored, but the word black is not.... I don't think I understand which word is worse?

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by Lofty Lefty

The one about the tipping was pretty funny, true or not. Again I am surprised at #1, in the way that the word arsehole is censored, but the word black is not.... I don't think I understand which word is worse?

Errr....how is black a bad word?

So would you rather

My aim was to shove it right up that ----- ----. ( sh%theads v#gina? )

OR

My aim was to shove it right up that ----- ass. ( f#ckers? )

How about:

My aim was to shove it right up that African american mixed race's bum hole?

I am surprised it is even censored at all. Neither word is bad - certainly not the word black.

[k-troop]

I think having a hot dog hurled at you pretty much says it all.  Stoked that Tiger managed the clenching point in the Prez Cup this year, though.  I'd like to see him competitive again.

[deasy55]

“I wasn't playing against Tiger Woods when he had that aura. I was watching on TV … There was a presence about him. There still is to some extent, but when you’re on the golf course you simply block it out . . . I'm not sure we are going to see him dominate again the way he did. He never seemed like he would make a mistake. It's not that he's playing badly. He's simply playing badly by Tiger's standards. He's playing like an ordinary golfer .”

I still don't see how this could possibly be interpreted as a shot at Tiger. That's a shot at other golfers if anything

[k-troop]

I've never bought the "Jack beat tougher foes than Tiger" argument.  Jack was beating Arnie (in Arnie's decline), but more realistically Johnny Miller, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Gary Player.  All but Miller have more majors than anyone currently on tour except Tiger.  A little later in Jack's run throw in Seve, Faldo.

The problem is, in Jack's era those were basically the only guys winning majors.  It was a bunch of dudes with 3, 4, 5, 6 wins and then a few guys with one and a bunch of guys with Zero.  Those were also the only guys winning tournaments, at least in large numbers.

Tiger is playing in an era when the multiple major winners are Ernie, Phil, Vijay, Paddy, each with 3 or 4.  But you also have a situation where there is so much talent that anyone can win a major.  Does anyone think that Furyk, McDowell, McIlroy, Schwartzel, Duval, Toms, Weir, Zach Johnson, O'Meara, Kaymer, Cink are scrub players?  Who's more talented head-to-head:  David Duval or Al Geiberger; Jim Furyk or Billy Casper?  All of these players have won not only majors, but lots of tournaments.

I'd venture that the fluke major winners in Jack's era would be struggling to keep their cards on the modern tour.

The real credit in this argument goes not to Jack for beating so many HoFers (don't read this the wrong way:  Jack is the GREATEST OF ALL TIME), but to the strength of numbers #20-75 in the OWGR.

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by deasy55

“I wasn't playing against Tiger Woods when he had that aura. I was watching on TV … There was a presence about him. There still is to some extent, but when you’re on the golf course you simply block it out . . . I'm not sure we are going to see him dominate again the way he did. He never seemed like he would make a mistake. It's not that he's playing badly. He's simply playing badly by Tiger's standards. He's playing like an ordinary golfer.”

I still don't see how this could possibly be interpreted as a shot at Tiger. That's a shot at other golfers if anything

You don't need to defend Rory everywhere you go...

[deasy55]

Could be anyone that said it, I still wouldn't get it. I don't see the offense to Tiger. Saying that Tigers bad is everyone elses normal? An insult? That's a praise

Originally Posted by Kieran123

You don't need to defend Rory everywhere you go...

[B-Con]

“I wasn't playing against Tiger Woods when he had that aura. I was watching on TV … There was a presence about him. There still is to some extent, but when you’re on the golf course you simply block it out . . . I'm not sure we are going to see him dominate again the way he did. He never seemed like he would make a mistake. [U] It's not that he's playing badly. He's simply playing badly by Tiger's standards. He's playing like an ordinary golfer [/U].” I still don't see how this could possibly be interpreted as a shot at Tiger. That's a shot at other golfers if anything

I thought that too. Maybe not a "shot" at him, but definitely a statement about his lack of dominance. That's probably why it's on the list.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by deasy55

“I wasn't playing against Tiger Woods when he had that aura. I was watching on TV … There was a presence about him. There still is to some extent, but when you’re on the golf course you simply block it out . . . I'm not sure we are going to see him dominate again the way he did. He never seemed like he would make a mistake. It's not that he's playing badly. He's simply playing badly by Tiger's standards. He's playing like an ordinary golfer.”

I still don't see how this could possibly be interpreted as a shot at Tiger. That's a shot at other golfers if anything

I agree with you.  When Rory (who is not one of my favorites, but fair is fair) said that, Tiger was playing like an ordinary guy.  But I have a feeling that in 2012 Rory is going to find out about the Tiger with the aura that he has previously only seen on TV.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

I've never bought the "Jack beat tougher foes than Tiger" argument.  Jack was beating Arnie (in Arnie's decline), but more realistically Johnny Miller, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Gary Player.  All but Miller have more majors than anyone currently on tour except Tiger.  A little later in Jack's run throw in Seve, Faldo.

The problem is, in Jack's era those were basically the only guys winning majors.  It was a bunch of dudes with 3, 4, 5, 6 wins and then a few guys with one and a bunch of guys with Zero.  Those were also the only guys winning tournaments, at least in large numbers.

Tiger is playing in an era when the multiple major winners are Ernie, Phil, Vijay, Paddy, each with 3 or 4.  But you also have a situation where there is so much talent that anyone can win a major.  Does anyone think that Furyk, McDowell, McIlroy, Schwartzel, Duval, Toms, Weir, Zach Johnson, O'Meara, Kaymer, Cink are scrub players?  Who's more talented head-to-head:  David Duval or Al Geiberger; Jim Furyk or Billy Casper?  All of these players have won not only majors, but lots of tournaments.

I'd venture that the fluke major winners in Jack's era would be struggling to keep their cards on the modern tour.

The real credit in this argument goes not to Jack for beating so many HoFers (don't read this the wrong way:  Jack is the GREATEST OF ALL TIME), but to the strength of numbers #20-75 in the OWGR.

You are exactly right.  If only a dozen guys are capable of winning the big ones you will have a lot more multiple major winners than if 75-100 guys are capable of winning the big ones.  Jack himself made this exact point in his 1996 autobiography when he said that the gofers in the middle of the pack today (1996, when he wrote it) have had to become as good as the top players were in his prime and that the top players of today (again, 1996) have had to become as good as the superstars were in his prime.

He also made the point that the advances in equipment actually make it harder for the better players to separate themselves from the lesser players.  And that top level golf now draws on a much larger base than back in his day.  And that the jump in money attracts better players, etc.  Until it became evident that Tiger was bucking the trend and being much more dominant than Nicklaus ever was in a competitive environment that was much less conducive to having  a dominant player pretty much everyone agreed with Jack when he wrote the following in 1996:.

Quote:

“In 1945, Byron Nelson won eighteen tournaments, eleven of them in a row, a record that more experts are convinced will never be broken. The following year Ben Hogan won thirteen times. From then on, as the nation recovered from the Second World War and professional golf entered its greatest boom years, it would become increasingly harder for one player to dominate the American tournament game.”

“Ben won eleven tournaments in 1948, and Sam Snead ten in 1950, but the highest total for the next quarter century would be seven, achieved by Arnold Palmer in 1962 and 1963 and equaled by me in 1972 and 1973. The modern record is now eight, and here, just for you to wonder at, are the scores that produced it, as compiled by Johnny Miller in 1974:”

…

“Six years later, in 1980, Tom Watson won six American tournaments. As I write, the best anyone has been able to do since then on the PGA Tour is five victories, by Nick Price in 1994, including the PGA Championship (just prior to which he had also won the British Open). With three wins in his first nine pro outings, Tiger Woods would seem likely to match or better such numbers, but it is hard to imagine even a player of his incredible talent matching the Nelson-Hogan-Snead numbers.”

“I am often asked to comment on the causes for the ‘decline of the superstar’, as many writers have chosen to call it. To my mind there are essentially three. Although it may not be the most critical, the first is golf equipment.”

…

“As equipment has improved, but particularly the ball, more of our great old courses have become less challenging or less interesting to play, or both. Merion is perhaps the best example” …

…

“Even more unfortunate to my mind than the impact of equipment advances on our finest courses is their contribution to the homogenizing of the players. Simply put, the more forgiving the tools, the tougher it becomes for the best to rise above the rest”. …

“I am convinced that at least a partial answer would be to have all top tournaments worldwide played with a uniform ball…, manufactured with say a 5-to-10 percent reduction in distance capacity.” …

“…I believe the benefits of such a system would be the return of the superstar, and perhaps even the dominating player, to professional golf. This would happen as the hungriest and most talented players separated themselves from the rest by making up for what they lost in distance through better self- and course-management, improved shotmaking skills, and great competitive intensity. A bonus would be the continued use of Merion and the like for championship play.”

…

“Improved equipment is, of course, not the only reason for golf’s lack of dominating performers in recent years.”

“One of the biggest changes in professional golf during my time in the game has been the physical fitness of the players. Thirty years ago, with a few exceptions like Gary Player, nobody did anything to increase his athleticism or improve his physical condition. Some guys after they had played might hit balls for awhile – most notably Ben Hogan – but the majority would just sit around and tell each other stories while having a few beers.”

“Those days are gone. … Most players eat more healthily than they used to, and they smoke and drink less, too. With a few exceptions like Greg Norman, who for years has trained strenuously under professional supervision, their athletic abilities might not compare with pro basketball players or marathon runners. Nevertheless, it is way beyond the standards of my early years. And, of course, the fitter the mass of golfers, the harder standing out becomes for any one of them.”

“Then there is the incentive factor.”

“Except for the Masters, the biggest purse on the tour in my first year as a professional in 1962 was the Thunderbird Classic’s $100,000, with most tournaments offering between one-third and one-half that amount, to be divided between thirty-five to forty players. Win and you generally took home between $5,000 and $9,000. Finish last and you hardly made the bus fare to the next event – usually well under $100.”

“Thirty-four years later, in 1996, the average purse on tour was $1,400,000, with highs of $3,000,000 (Players and Tour Championship).” …

“In evaluating these numbers, consider if you will how many more contenders your business would have attracted, and how much more competitive it would have become, given comparably huge increases in financial incentive over the same time span. By then imagining how much harder it would have become for you to remain a market dominator, you will get a sense what it takes to become a dominating golf champion as we approach the second millennium.”

“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”

[sonicblue]

I lost respect for Rick Reilly with that column.  I would love for some Hollywood paparazzi-style private detective to dig in and find something on that pompous ass.  Let's make a list of golfers who are around 20th in the OWGR, who hadn't won in two years at that point, and who didn't have an injury or a major life event to distract them from their game.  While the Chevron has all kinds of caveats about field size, etc..., Tiger still held off a world-class competitor on the back 9 on Sunday to win a tournament, which is still something probably 100 guys with their tour card can't say they've ever done, which immediately undoes half the things he says, just like that.

The true forgiving person, finds a way to forgive in the wake of serious misgivings.  Any fair-weather human being can forgive the little stuff.  Now we know where Rick stands.