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

[birlyshirly]

You don't think Huggan has an established readership? I didn't know anything about Doyel or Bamburger until their articles were linked from this thread, but in this case it's not like we're dealing with an unknown blogger trying to make a name for himself .

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Anyone got a bus to throw John Huggan under? Does this count as "respected journalist" or "golf insider"?

He dances much more carefully around the C-word than Brandel, Doyel or Bamburger - but has no problem calling the succession of issues "increasingly disturbing" and "that will surely damage his reputation with the public and, more importantly, his fellow professionals". More debate surely prompted by BC.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/john-huggan-questions-grow-over-woods-ethics-1-3105921

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

You never seem to get that Id fully support Brandel's article if he hadnt called Tiger a "cheater"-Thats where it went across the line. That word made the discussion as much-OR MORE-About Brandel as it was about Tiger and the rules-You said so yourself when was the last time we talked about Tiger and the rules themselves?

You seem like a smart guy-So get that into your head.-Its mostly about the "cheater" word. Got no problems with journalists offering opinions.-Just when they cross thel ine it gets bad.

This debate isn't "surely" prompted by BC. Others have written articles too and you act like nobody would have thought to write an article about Tiger Woods and his rules stuff if BC hadnt done it first.-I know you cant prove a negative but you REALLY cant prove that. Nor can you prove that theyd not have written articles if BC had left out the "cheater" crap and written a better article that focused solely on Tiger and not Dufner's wife and Vijay's deer antler spray.

Yeah, if Brandel had said this, we wouldn't be talking about it anymore.  Except for Huggan also insisting on including the Players in his list of "issues," I think this article is a pretty good, and fair one.  This excerpt sums it all up pretty well for me:

Quote:

Woods’ attitude is therefore perplexing and not a little disappointing. Golf history is littered with instances of players calling penalties on themselves even when real doubt lingered over their guilt or innocence. Better to play safe and take any punishment than endure a lifetime of whispers regarding one’s ability to represent golf in the best possible light.

This time, even with little or no “wiggle room,” Woods chose a different – some might say more arrogant – route, one that will surely damage his reputation with the public and, more importantly, his fellow professionals.

I don't agree with the idea that his reputation will be "surely" damaged amongst his fellow professionals, though.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't, who knows?

[birlyshirly]

You never seem to get that Id fully support Brandel's article if he hadnt called Tiger a "cheater"-Thats where it went across the line.

What if Brandel had written something along the lines of - "the [BMW] ball clearly moved, surely from where he was Tiger saw it, this is potentially murky"? What if he'd gone on to draw Huggan's conclusion that this will play badly with his fellow pros? I don't see much difference in meaning - except that he'd have dressed up a veiled accusation in politer terms.

[newtogolf]

You don't think Huggan has an established readership? I didn't know anything about Doyel or Bamburger until their articles were linked from this thread, but in this case it's not like we're dealing with an unknown blogger trying to make a name for himself .

You don't find the timing interesting?  BC writes an article where he calls Tiger a cheater and now a bunch of other writers decide to chime in?  If all these guys were so concerned about Tiger's attitude towards the rules where were they 6 weeks ago?

[Lihu]

You never seem to get that Id fully support Brandel's article if he hadnt called Tiger a "cheater"-Thats where it went across the line. That word made the discussion as much-OR MORE-About Brandel as it was about Tiger and the rules-You said so yourself when was the last time we talked about Tiger and the rules themselves?

This pretty much sums it up.

[birlyshirly]

You don't find the timing interesting?  BC writes an article where he calls Tiger a cheater and now a bunch of other writers decide to chime in?  If all these guys were so concerned about Tiger's attitude towards the rules where were they 6 weeks ago?

Agreed. That was the first point I made here: that I welcomed BC's article, because I doubted that many other journalists would have the stones to kick this off.

[newtogolf]

Agreed. That was the first point I made here: that I welcomed BC's article, because I doubted that many other journalists would have the stones to kick this off.

We do agree, the point you don't seem willing to agree on is that BC went over the line implying Tiger was a cheater.  If BC wrote an article that highlighted Tigers rule infractions and left it to the reader to form their own opinion we wouldn't have had any of this discussion.

[Phil McGleno]

Brandel couldn't prove that Tiger saw it move, so it would be dumb to write that too.-I meant what I said above-My problem is almost 100% because he went to the "cheater" word-Not a problem with questioning TIger and the rules infractions (THREE) this year.[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/612#post_916880"] What if Brandel had written something along the lines of - "the [BMW] ball clearly moved, surely from where he was Tiger saw it, this is potentially murky"? What if he'd gone on to draw Huggan's conclusion that this will play badly with his fellow pros? I don't see much difference in meaning - except that he'd have dressed up a veiled accusation in politer terms.[/quote]

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Huggan: Woods’ attitude is therefore perplexing and not a little disappointing. Golf history is littered with instances of players calling penalties on themselves even when real doubt lingered over their guilt or innocence. Better to play safe and take any punishment than endure a lifetime of whispers regarding one’s ability to represent golf in the best possible light.

This time, even with little or no “wiggle room,” Woods chose a different – some might say more arrogant – route, one that will surely damage his reputation with the public and, more importantly, his fellow professionals.

I don't agree with the idea that his reputation will be "surely" damaged amongst his fellow professionals, though.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't, who knows?

Probasbly not, primarily for the reason Huggan pointed out at the end of the article.

Huggan: Not that we are likely to hear much, even anonymously, on the subject from any tour player. For them, there is no future in publicly criticising such a powerful figure.

Besides, every professional appreciates only too well how much Woods has done to boost their bank balances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

You don't find the timing interesting?  BC writes an article where he calls Tiger a cheater and now a bunch of other writers decide to chime in?  If all these guys were so concerned about Tiger's attitude towards the rules where were they 6 weeks ago?

The timing should come as no surprise at all. They all didn't have the balls to do what Chamblee did, but they all apparently had the same misgivings about what went on with Tiger in 2013. Plus, now they all have a template of how NOT to do it. I don't see any of them mecessarily calling Tiger a cheater, and they are expressing disappointment more than anything.

And BTW, the Players incident should be in play, IMO. As Hugan points out, why is Tiger relying on what Casey Wittenberg has to say about it, considering the scrutiny Tiger is always under? Just because Wittenberg gave him a pass does not mean the drop was not questionable. Anybody who watched the telecast knows that it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

We do agree, the point you don't seem willing to agree on is that BC went over the line implying Tiger was a cheater. If BC wrote an article that highlighted Tigers rule infractions and left it to the reader to form their own opinion we wouldn't have had any of this discussion.

Of course we would. Anything about Tiger draws interest and discussion. But it would be about Tiger and not Chamblee. That was his big mistake.

[Lihu]

Probably not, primarily for the reason Huggan pointed out at the end of the article.

Huggan: Not that we are likely to hear much, even anonymously, on the subject from any tour player. For them, there is no future in publicly criticising such a powerful figure.

Besides, every professional appreciates only too well how much Woods has done to boost their bank balances.

That also $ums it up

BUT remember what Tiger did for the overall golf industry. Many golfers are out there because Tiger broke many barriers, and made it seem acceptable for many minorities to play. When I was young, my dad would ridicule any of his friends contemplating playing golf. Now, he doesn't even wince at the though of his grandchildren playing, and might even play a round with us someday. That's progress.

I think I mentioned earlier that Brandel does not seem to grasp the economic implications of making the sport seem so uptight and inaccessible by calling the number one golfer a cheater. Although, I agree that 3 infractions is a bit high, going overboard by calling him a cheater could scare away some young prospective golfers of any ethnicity.

[Golfingdad]

And BTW, the Players incident should be in play, IMO. As Hugan points out, why is Tiger relying on what Casey Wittenberg has to say about it, considering the scrutiny Tiger is always under? Just because Wittenberg gave him a pass does not mean the drop was not questionable. Anybody who watched the telecast knows that it was.

I don't think that's right.  I think it was a case of the announcers quickly jumping to a conclusion based on a goofy camera angle, and then it snow-balled from there.

It would be like if a football announcer questioned whether or not a field goal was good from the upper deck on the 50 yard line (without the benefit of the endzone camera), and saying that there is enough evidence to say the referee screwed up.  And then the next morning, the headline reads "Giants win on controversial field goal."  Well, no, not really.  Stupid Dan Deirdorf just decided on his own, with no evidence whatsoever to back him up, that it was controversial.

It was less than a molehill, not even an anthill, turned into Mt. Everest because Johnny Miller Mark Rolfing (I just watched it again) thinks he dropped too far forward.  Here are the three ACTUAL important FACTS on this one:

1.  Mark Rolfing is the one who is on the tee with Tiger and he is the one who starts the controversy by suggesting the drop is too far forward.  He says this immediately after saying AND I QUOTE, " ... I didn't see it but ..."  He admits that he didn't even see it!!!!!!

2.  Mark reports that Tiger asked Casey Wittenberg if it went around 'that red stake' and (based on Rolfings tone), Wittenberg definitively answers "yes, it did."

3.  The "proof" that Johnny Miller and everybody else is going from is the overhead view that shows his ball landing in water, and behind the ball the entire time is nothing but water.  But what he's ignoring is the fact that he's looking through a telephoto lens in a blimp that is somewhere between 1000 and 1500 feet at a skewed angle.

Think about this:  How many times have you watched a replay of a guy hitting a great approach shot from the blimp view and seen the ball go "past" the hole, before seemingly dropping backwards to the pin?  Johnny Miller has the same amount of proof to suggest that that ball never cleared water as I have of declaring PGA tour pros capable of hitting balls that fly 20 yards beyond the green and then reverse direction in midair, and land next to the pin.

[turtleback]

And BTW, the Players incident should be in play, IMO. As Hugan points out, why is Tiger relying on what Casey Wittenberg has to say about it, considering the scrutiny Tiger is always under? Just because Wittenberg gave him a pass does not mean the drop was not questionable. Anybody who watched the telecast knows that it was.

I watched the telecast and as someone who has a basic understanding of the way a camera angle distorts things I did not think it was questionable in the slightest.  Again, you assume that YOUR opinion is something that EVERYONE should agree with, i.e., that YOUR opinion is really a fact.  You just don't seem to be able to help yourself.

I think I mentioned earlier that Brandel does not seem to grasp the economic implications of making the sport seem so uptight and inaccessible by calling the number one golfer a cheater. Although, I agree that 3 infractions is a bit high, going overboard by calling him a cheater could scare away some young prospective golfers of any ethnicity.

If Tiger is  cheater than there are only 2 possibilities.  Either he is good at it and has stolen lots of strokes that we never knew about, or he is one of the worst cheaters of all time, considering that in every instance that has been brought up (except for the silly Players drop nonsense) he was assessed penalty strokes.  But because and only because it is Tiger some folks are happy to make the connection between getting penalized and being a cheater.

Think about this:  How many times have you watched a replay of a guy hitting a great approach shot from the blimp view and seen the ball go "past" the hole, before seemingly dropping backwards to the pin?  Johnny Miller has the same amount of proof to suggest that that ball never cleared water as I have of declaring PGA tour pros capable of hitting balls that fly 20 yards beyond the green and then reverse direction in midair, and land next to the pin.

You mean they can't do that?  Damn, another illusion shattered.  But seriously, the frequency with which the Players drop comes up just shows the depth of bias against Tiger in some circles, for whatever reason.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

And BTW, the Players incident should be in play, IMO. As Hugan points out, why is Tiger relying on what Casey Wittenberg has to say about it, considering the scrutiny Tiger is always under? Just because Wittenberg gave him a pass does not mean the drop was not questionable. Anybody who watched the telecast knows that it was.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't think that's right.  I think it was a case of the announcers quickly jumping to a conclusion based on a goofy camera angle, and then it snow-balled from there.

It would be like if a football announcer questioned whether or not a field goal was good from the upper deck on the 50 yard line (without the benefit of the endzone camera), and saying that there is enough evidence to say the referee screwed up.  And then the next morning, the headline reads "Giants win on controversial field goal."  Well, no, not really.  Stupid Dan Deirdorf just decided on his own, with no evidence whatsoever to back him up, that it was controversial.

It was less than a molehill, not even an anthill, turned into Mt. Everest because Johnny Miller Mark Rolfing (I just watched it again) thinks he dropped too far forward.  Here are the three ACTUAL important FACTS on this one:

1.  Mark Rolfing is the one who is on the tee with Tiger and he is the one who starts the controversy by suggesting the drop is too far forward.  He says this immediately after saying AND I QUOTE, " ... I didn't see it but ..."  He admits that he didn't even see it!!!!!!

2.  Mark reports that Tiger asked Casey Wittenberg if it went around 'that red stake' and (based on Rolfings tone), Wittenberg definitively answers "yes, it did."

3.  The "proof" that Johnny Miller and everybody else is going from is the overhead view that shows his ball landing in water, and behind the ball the entire time is nothing but water.  But what he's ignoring is the fact that he's looking through a telephoto lens in a blimp that is somewhere between 1000 and 1500 feet at a skewed angle.

Think about this:  How many times have you watched a replay of a guy hitting a great approach shot from the blimp view and seen the ball go "past" the hole, before seemingly dropping backwards to the pin?  Johnny Miller has the same amount of proof to suggest that that ball never cleared water as I have of declaring PGA tour pros capable of hitting balls that fly 20 yards beyond the green and then reverse direction in midair, and land next to the pin.

Tiger is on camera for practically every swing he makes in any particular tournament. I just think that he would be better off consulting a RO anytime he has his ball in his hands, as he apparently lacks basic knowledge of the rules (Dubai and Augusta). It happened to him again in Chicago. I think he will continue to get burnt if he doesn't change his approach.

[Lihu]

I don't think that's right.  I think it was a case of the announcers quickly jumping to a conclusion based on a goofy camera angle, and then it snow-balled from there.

I think what is needed is a video replication of what we think Tiger could have seen from the TOP of the ball, while we have an ant's view.

Hard for me to understand why it is so obvious that Tiger saw it move. Could he have seen it drop by a millimeter or so under those lighting conditions? It could look like it didn't move or possibly oscillated? I am experimenting with this at my desk as I am writing this. It's not that easy to see that much motion.

We would need to replicate the lighting conditions, the cameras they use could also improve the contrast with low light. Low light in this case could be in the 500Lux range, but the region outside the shade is probably close to 20,000Lux (sunlight conditions). Your pupils adjust to the brighter lighting condition, so things will appear much darker in these shade conditions than they would under the same lighting conditions in an office environment.

[Golfingdad]

Tiger is on camera for practically every swing he makes in any particular tournament. I just think that he would be better off consulting a RO anytime he has his ball in his hands, as he apparently lacks basic knowledge of the rules (Dubai and Augusta). It happened to him again in Chicago. I think he will continue to get burnt if he doesn't change his approach.

I'd agree with that.  He'd be really dumb not to err on the really cautious side, going forward.  People are going to be champing at the bit to embroil him in another controversy.

[Golfingdad]

I think what is needed is a video replication of what we think Tiger could have seen from the TOP of the ball, while we have an ant's view.

Hard for me to understand why it is so obvious that Tiger saw it move. Could he have seen it drop by a millimeter or so under those lighting conditions? It could look like it didn't move or possibly oscillated? I am experimenting with this at my desk as I am writing this. It's not that easy to see that much motion.

We would need to replicate the lighting conditions, the cameras they use could also improve the contrast with low light. Low light in this case could be in the 500Lux range, but the region outside the shade is probably close to 20,000Lux (sunlight conditions). Your pupils adjust to the brighter lighting condition, so things will appear much darker in these shade conditions than they would under the same lighting conditions in an office environment.

Sorry, Lihu ... but I threw you for a loop on that one.  I wasn't talking about the BMW, I was talking about the Players. ;)

But to answer your question in regards to the BMW, from my own personal point of view ...  It's not about whether or not he could have seen it move from his point of view.  I totally, 100%, unequivocally, believe him when he says that he didn't see it move from his point of view.  But what I would have liked him to stipulate was that he couldn't possibly know that it DIDN'T move in a direction that was not visible to his eye from his angle.  Ideally he would have done that immediately ... called over a RO or playing partner, and just admit that he thought it oscillated but he couldn't possibly be 100% sure.  Or, at the very least, at some point since.  Maybe not right when shown the video, because he was understandably pissed at having fallen so far in the tournament he was trying to win, but at least at some point since then.  Has he ever come out and admitted that he was wrong there and that the RO's were right?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't think that's right.  I think it was a case of the announcers quickly jumping to a conclusion based on a goofy camera angle, and then it snow-balled from there.

I think what is needed is a video replication of what we think Tiger could have seen from the TOP of the ball, while we have an ant's view.

Hard for me to understand why it is so obvious that Tiger saw it move. Could he have seen it drop by a millimeter or so under those lighting conditions? It could look like it didn't move or possibly oscillated? I am experimenting with this at my desk as I am writing this. It's not that easy to see that much motion.

We would need to replicate the lighting conditions, the cameras they use could also improve the contrast with low light. Low light in this case could be in the 500Lux range, but the region outside the shade is probably close to 20,000Lux (sunlight conditions). Your pupils adjust to the brighter lighting condition, so things will appear much darker in these shade conditions than they would under the same lighting conditions in an office environment.

The anti-Tigers will always say that he couldn't help but see the ball move.

The pro-Tigers will say it never moved at all.

The sensible observers with any sort of good judgement (which includes most of us) will say yes the ball moved, but it probably was not apparent to Tiger in the heat of battle.  He should have called in an official after he saw the ball wiggle and this discussion would not be happening.  He shouldn't have gone off on the official when the penalty was assessed against him.  This is how I see it and how most sensible people see it.

[birlyshirly]

Golfingdad and fourputt - I hear what you're saying about consulting with a RO, but in the BMW situation, what can Tiger possibly say? The RO can only ask Tiger, do you think your ball moved or not? If the answer's no - then there's nothing to talk about. If the answer's yes, then there's a penalty and a replace. I don't think Tiger can hedge his bets by saying "I don't THINK it moved, but if video evidence turns up that proves me wrong, then at least I've flagged it." The whole "call-ins" issue is designed to take us away from that sort of scenario, and let decisions be made on the ground.

There's no way for Tiger to subcontract the original factual question of whether the ball moved, in the same way as he can (legitimately) where there's a question of how a rule should be interpreted.