Tiger Injures Achilles Tendon

[zeg]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

You are ignoring the possibility that he gave it a go to see if he could play through the injury, and once he realized he couldn't, he quit.

An interesting thing happens when Tiger WDs from a tourney.  Lots of folks assume the injury worsens as a result of poor play, and completely ignore the possibility that poor play could be a result of a worsening injury.

Very good point.

If someone is injured, they have no responsibility to risk injury in order to continue playing. It's really not relevant that he pushed through a worse injury in the past. Maybe he learned something from that experience and has decided it's not worth risking it again.

The way I'd think about it is that he thought he might be able to finish and he gave them 11.25 holes on Sunday before he realized it wasn't going to work. I'm sure the fact that he was out of contention was a factor, but it's impossible to gauge how much of a factor.

And, let's not kid ourselves. Anyone with a possible injury considers the importance of the event when they decide how much to push it. In addition to the win itself, the broken-leg US Open win is a story that people will be talking about for decades. I think anyone who claims they'd treat the decision to withdraw when in contention in those circumstances exactly the same as they'd treat a possible 45th place in a smaller tournament is blowing smoke.

Plus, sheesh, it's not like he hit a dozen 7I into the water before walking off the course...

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

That may be true, but Arnie and Jack enjoyed their role as an ambassador of golf and a good relationship with the media.  Tiger doesn't seem to want to be a golf ambassador nor does he have a good relationship with the media which is why I believe he'd get out of golf if he doesn't think he can win anymore.  Also Jack and Arnie did make nearly as much money as Tiger did during their careers.

It was a lot easier to have a good relationship with the media when there was a completely different code among sportswriters and there was no 24/7 Internet.  Arnie was a renowned skirt chaser but that was never reported because reporters just didn't report those kinds of things back then.  And Jack said some of the stupider things any top golfer has ever said.  Like his explanation of how African Americans had different kinds of muscles and hence were not suited to top level golf.  In the current environment they would have been ripped to shreds just like tiger was.

Quote:

Unfortunately, he [Nicklaus] also displays a racist attitude shared by many white liberals in this country. This attitude can be called the "Jack Nicklaus syndrome" because Nicklaus illustrated it so clearly in July 1994. He said that the reason there are not more African-American golfers playing at the highest level in the sport is because blacks have "different muscles that react in different ways." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v56/ai_18501026/

He was criticized, not nowhere near to the extent of the vilification that Tiger has received.  I don;t even recall Jack losing any sponsors or having his course design business harmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

Actually, in "all that text" I was making that exact point:  Tiger quit because he "wasn't playing well."  My question was is that okay.  Is it okay for a golfer, having decided to "give it a go" because he thinks he can win, to quit when it becomes apparent that he can't?

According to nearly everyone on this forum, it is perfectly okay.

For a guy who conceded that his take was wrong you are still doing a whole lot of passive aggressive defending of it.  And in a fundamentally dishonest way since you keep leaving out the whole injury part of the equation.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

And that he doesn't subscribe to Occam's Razor.  In all of that text he never even considered the simplest answer, which is likely the correct answer: he was in some level of pain/discomfort, gave it a go, wasn't playing well and the discomfort either sustained or worsened...so he withdrew.

Brandon

Originally Posted by k-troop

Actually, in "all that text" I was making that exact point:  Tiger quit because he "wasn't playing well."  My question was is that okay.  Is it okay for a golfer, having decided to "give it a go" because he thinks he can win, to quit when it becomes apparent that he can't?

According to nearly everyone on this forum, it is perfectly okay.

Originally Posted by iacas

That's not what anyone said. You completely left out "the golfer is injured" in the quoted text above, and it dramatically changes things.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

You are once again implying that the injury has nothing to do with it.  Now, if an athlete is injured and decides to give it a go only if he can win and once he realizes he can't, decides to quit, I would be okay with that.  But that is not the only possibility.  You are ignoring the possibility that he gave it a go to see if he could play through the injury, and once he realized he couldn't, he quit.

Brandon

Quote:

For a guy who conceded that his take was wrong you are still doing a whole lot of passive aggressive defending of it.  And in a fundamentally dishonest way since you keep leaving out the whole injury part of the equation.

Here's the whole quote string, guys.  And BTW, there were a dozen or so posts before this.  In none of them did I imply he wasn't injured.  In fact, in the post Iacas quotes saying I "left out that the golfer was injured"  explicitly included the part about him being injured.  I didn't re-type it, because I've already been accused of being wordy. But I did quote it.

Here would be a controversial post:  "Hey guys, is it okay for someone to withdraw from a tourney just because they're injured?"

Responses would be:  "No.  Issue settled"; or "Apparently you didn't realize he was injured.  Issue settled."

Of course, that's not the case.  He was injured.  The point I made from the beginning was simply this:  he was feeling pain when he started, and he was feeling pain when he WD'd.  The only difference was the fact that he no longer had a chance to win.  And I was wondering if that seemed unsportsmanlike to anyone.

And, as has been noted, I conceded that the consensus opinion is that it is not.  I have not been defending my initial opinion since then, merely correcting those who have accused me of saying things I did not say.

Look at "all that text" again.  The injury is referenced at least 10 times.

[spearq8]

The "spoilt brat" description was used when Tiger won a major with what looked like an injury.  A lot of people, including some participating players, mentioned that he was hyping his injury.  Well it turned out that his "fake" injury was really very serious, and that he had somehow crushed the field with what was basically a broken leg. Who knows if playing with that injury was worth it for Tiger, maybe his present nagging injuries can be due to playing when injured and not respecting the healing time a body needs to fix itself.  Again, Tiger is all about majors and all other tournaments are just warm ups for majors.  He has one record that he really wants to beat and to do that he needs several more wins in Majors.  I would not be surprised if Tiger doesn't play till the next major.

[k-troop]

Just went back and looked at all my posts.  In every instance I either referenced the injury or directly commented on and quoted a post which referenced the injury, though that may not be obvious if you only look at another post where my text was quoted.  I've never implied that there wasn't an injury.

Again, the whole point of my rant was that he was in pain when he started, and in pain when he finished.  In my judgment, the discriminating fact which led to the WD was that he couldn't win--the injury remained a constant.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I was trying to lay the sarcasm on extra thick to illustrate how, if people hate a person enough, they can see what they want to see in anything that person does.  I read that article and watched the vid and was laughing at how overblown the "confrontation" was.

Brandon

ahhh okay. My apologies for reading something other than what you were going for.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by turtleback

It was a lot easier to have a good relationship with the media when there was a completely different code among sportswriters and there was no 24/7 Internet.  Arnie was a renowned skirt chaser but that was never reported because reporters just didn't report those kinds of things back then.

This is always a good point.  Often (on other forums) when I'm discussing football and basketball and I hear folks mentioning how poor the current state of athletic role models is, I often try to belabor the point that, while that may be true, it was also true of yesteryear.  However, there was a different relationship with the media back then.  They would have close enough relationships with players to actually know their faults, vices and misdeeds, but there was an understanding that they would not report those things.  These days, every small morsel of inside access is quickly leaked to blogs and media outlets, even if it's not worth the time it took to write the article.

Brandon

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Just went back and looked at all my posts.  In every instance I either referenced the injury or directly commented on and quoted a post which referenced the injury, though that may not be obvious if you only look at another post where my text was quoted.  I've never implied that there wasn't an injury.

Again, the whole point of my rant was that he was in pain when he started, and in pain when he finished.  In my judgment, the discriminating fact which led to the WD was that he couldn't win--the injury remained a constant.

There are people on both sides of any discussion who read what they want to read and when they slash posts to sh** in their replies there's no guarantee the original message will be intact several requotes and re-interpretations later. Just my 2 cents.

[jamo]

He'll be back for the Tavistock and the Bay Hill Invitational: http://www.golf.com/ap-news/tiger-woods-play-next-week-tavistock-cup-arnold-palmer-invitational

[brocks]

He'll be back for the Tavistock and the Bay Hill Invitational: http://www.golf.com/ap-news/tiger-woods-play-next-week-tavistock-cup-arnold-palmer-invitational

I'm glad it's not serious, and I'm glad he'll play Bay Hill, but I think he's an idiot to play the Tavistock. Does he really need the cash?

[zipazoid]

No. He really needs the competitive rounds.

[Zeph]

The more the better, I agree. The last weeks might have been too much, I haven't really caught the reason for his achilles issues, but he'll survive two days in Tavistock plus Bay Hill. Two weeks of break before Augusta.

[ghalfaire]

I read most of the comments and am amazed Tiger WD drew some of the remarks.  The last time he pushed himself on an injured leg he won a major, but has not won one since.  I suspect part of the reason is because of the damage he did to his leg/knee by playing that tournament once it was clear he was hurt.  So for whatever it is worth I think Tiger has as much "guts" as ever and wants to win as bad as ever and I certainly don't think he is  wimp.  But just maybe he learned a lesson about reaching longer term goals.  The lesson is don't take chances with the machinery for short term gain and jeopardize longer term goals. I don't think he has two more years to develop a new swing again if he is after Jack's record and does anyone not believe he is.

I don't particularly like Tiger but have a lot of respect for his talent, work ethic, and dedication to the task.  Like him or not he is one great golfer and has been good for the game in a lot of ways.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

No. He really needs the competitive rounds.

Agreed.  I don't believe he has a shot at winning the Masters without at least one competitive round before-hand.  Particularly for the sake of his short game/putting.

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

I read most of the comments and am amazed Tiger WD drew some of the remarks.  The last time he pushed himself on an injured leg he won a major, but has not won one since.  I suspect part of the reason is because of the damage he did to his leg/knee by playing that tournament once it was clear he was hurt.  So for whatever it is worth I think Tiger has as much "guts" as ever and wants to win as bad as ever and I certainly don't think he is  wimp.  But just maybe he learned a lesson about reaching longer term goals.  The lesson is don't take chances with the machinery for short term gain and jeopardize longer term goals. I don't think he has two more years to develop a new swing again if he is after Jack's record and does anyone not believe he is.

I don't particularly like Tiger but have a lot of respect for his talent, work ethic, and dedication to the task.  Like him or not he is one great golfer and has been good for the game in a lot of ways.

I wouldn't say I was amazed, but it definitely makes very little sense.  It just goes to show how unreasonable people can be when bias comes into play.

Brandon

[spearq8]

What I don't understand about the negative comments about Tiger is that many seem pissed off that he gets so much attention.  If you win 14 majors and win more than 70 PGA tournaments ... I guess that will attract some attention.  While many people enjoy Tiger fail, many really want him to get back to where he was dominant to witness history as it is happening.  Even my wife who has never hit a golf ball will sit and watch 5 hours of golf coverage only if Tiger is playing.  Whether you like it or not, he is probably the best golf player in the history of the game, and that tends to attract even non golfers to how he is performing.  Add to that the soap opera type saga with his personal life, and you get even more interest!

[BugDude]

My general lack of fondness for Tiger came as much from the media as from him.  At first, he was a jerk when he was interviewed.  A lack of humility or reverance for the game and his fellow competitors.  Then, the media just wouldn't shut up.  I recall a tournament early on where he was not even in contention and they talked about and showed him more than the guys leading the tournament.  There are tournaments in which he isn't even playing and they spend the entire week talking about him.  Really?  People have always been too quick to call him the greatest ever.  You can't compare Jack's 40 year career in golf not only as a player, but a golf course architect, and a true ambassador of the game to Tiger's 15 or so year career.  People were calling Tiger the best in history well before he got close to Jack's major title record not considering that one injury could ruin it.  One thing people also fail to consider is how many times Jack came in 2nd at majors.  You may say that second isn't first, but collectively looking at both wins and seconds shows how many times he was battling it out for the win on Sunday.  In all honesty, when the crap about Tiger's personal life came out, it kind of helped me not dislike him as much.  Perhaps it was because for the first time he had been humbled and wasn't such a self righteous prick.  If the media would stop talking about him all the time, maybe I'd actually like him.....well, maybe not.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by BugDude

A lack of humility or reverance for the game and his fellow competitors.

For example?

Because he seems to know more about the history of the game than almost any other current PGA Tour player.

Originally Posted by BugDude

I recall a tournament early on where he was not even in contention and they talked about and showed him more than the guys leading the tournament.

He moves the needle. He's shown because the network wants viewers. If people didn't care about him, they wouldn't show him on TV when he's not in the hunt.

Originally Posted by BugDude

There are tournaments in which he isn't even playing and they spend the entire week talking about him.

Exaggerate much?

Originally Posted by BugDude

People have always been too quick to call him the greatest ever.  You can't compare Jack's 40 year career in golf not only as a player, but a golf course architect, and a true ambassador of the game to Tiger's 15 or so year career.

That's your opinion. Others can make a case that 14 in the modern era is as good as 18 in Jack's era. You feel differently. But I think we all agree that Jack's career as a golf course architect really don't affect his status as "greatest player."

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

That's your opinion. Others can make a case that 14 in the modern era is as good as 18 in Jack's era. You feel differently. But I think we all agree that Jack's career as a golf course architect really don't affect his status as "greatest player."

Or you can throw in other factors such as margin of victory, the Tiger Slam, cut streak, the OWGR domination, including routinely having more than double the OWGR points of the #2 player despite playing fewer events than any top-50 player

Still doesn't mean that he's the greatest ever, but it's an interesting discussion.