The Tiger Woods saga

#2,176
#2,176
GAVol said:
I've read it. There's no doubt his father's death had an effect on him, but when it comes down to it, he still managed to be the best in the world until he wrecked his back. It's the same thing that's derailed Couples, Duval, Trevino and countless others. Jason Day and Rory McIlroy are fighting that now. It's just a hard sport to stay on top of. The fact that he did it for 10-12 years is pretty amazing.
Click to expand...

Tiger is 41. Playing great at this stage in your life just doesn't happen to a lot of people. Very few in fact. There are a lot of variables, but in the end, age and a bad back are the overwhelming factors in his decline, just like many of his peers
 
#2,179
#2,179
volfanbill said:
Tiger is 41. Playing great at this stage in your life just doesn't happen to a lot of people. Very few in fact. There are a lot of variables, but in the end, age and a bad back are the overwhelming factors in his decline, just like many of his peers
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think guys like Phil and Vijay have made people think it's no big deal to rack up wins over 40 and it just doesn't happen very often.
 
#2,181
#2,181
95 Vol Alum said:
Add Furyk
Click to expand...

True. He is an example having just won last year I think, but I'm pretty sure that's his only win over 40 and he's probably at least 45 by now. Furyk never has really won in flurries, he's just been solid for a long time.

Edit: he won the Tour Championship right after turning 40 and won the Heritage in 2015 at age 45.
 
#2,188
#2,188
volfanbill said:
I don't like the coverage either when Tiger plays, but you can't deny the buzz when he's out there. Go back to watching the 1970's
Click to expand...
I enjoyed watching Spieth beat the field today, thanks. Having played golf since 1964, I can assure you that if the ball and persimmon woods of yesterday were still in play today, nobody would be taking the rip at it that several do today. They would never find their ball. The equipment has led to better athletes in better shape, swinging for the fences, because the misses are minimized.

Agronomy has led to much smoother greens and smoother putting strokes. It is a game far removed from even the 1980's. It is like the difference between the NBA today and 1965. I don't know that one is any better than the other, but today's golf is much more costly, both in equipment, and especially, golf course maintenance due to plush, ever longer golf courses.

I guess that the same could be said for the switch to steel shafts and wound, liquid center golf balls. The reason Bobby Jones swung the club as smoothly as he did was to have control with the hickory shafts. If you have never played with persimmon woods, and balls that you could cut in half with a thin shot, you wouldn't understand. The driver was about 150 cc , instead of 460cc today, and the ball curved way more. I'm not saying that way is better, but I am saying it was a lot harder.
 
#2,189
#2,189
My above post is why I have said that you can't compare eras in sports. Nicklaus and Jones would be different players if they were growing up today, and Woods would have been a different player if he played 80 years ago, or 40 years ago, or whatever. Their swings would be different, their short games would be different, etc.
 
#2,191
#2,191
volfanbill said:
How many times are you going to remind us you've watched golf since the feathery days?
Click to expand...
I was trying to give some perspective that some others may not be aware of. If you played with persimmon woods and wound balls, don't read it. You already know. The feathery was a bit before my day.
 
#2,192
#2,192
volfanbill said:
How many times are you going to remind us you've watched golf since the feathery days?
Click to expand...
I know that you and doozer don't like me because I'm not a Tiger Woods fan. The fact is that golf was here long before Tiger, and will be here long after he's gone. He is not bigger than the game. The game is in good hands with Spieth, Day, McIlroy, Johnson, Fowler, etc. I am a fan of the game.

You should appreciate fans of the game because we have something in common. I couldn't care less if you didn't like Jordan Spieth. Why does it bother you two that I don't like Tiger?
 
#2,193
#2,193
1972 Grad said:
I know that you and doozer don't like me because I'm not a Tiger Woods fan. The fact is that golf was here long before Tiger, and will be here long after he's gone. He is not bigger than the game. The game is in good hands with Spieth, Day, McIlroy, Johnson, Fowler, etc. I am a fan of the game.

You should appreciate fans of the game because we have something in common. I couldn't care less if you didn't like Jordan Spieth. Why does it bother you two that I don't like Tiger?
Click to expand...

You not liking Tiger isn't why I ridicule your posts. It's your lame, constantly repeated, incorrect views on Tiger that are solely based on your dislike of him and not based at all in reality. If you go back and read, I don't care for Tiger and doozer isn't a big fan either. But your weekly bushings of him are wildly inaccurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,194
#2,194
GAVol said:
True. He is an example having just won last year I think, but I'm pretty sure that's his only win over 40 and he's probably at least 45 by now. Furyk never has really won in flurries, he's just been solid for a long time.

Edit: he won the Tour Championship right after turning 40 and won the Heritage in 2015 at age 45.
Click to expand...

I would've guessed higher. But Top 20 after 40 is pretty solid. Stenson is now 40, iirc.
 
#2,195
#2,195
volfanbill said:
You not liking Tiger isn't why I ridicule your posts. It's your lame, constantly repeated, incorrect views on Tiger that are solely based on your dislike of him and not based at all in reality. If you go back and read, I don't care for Tiger and doozer isn't a big fan either. But your weekly bushings of him are wildly inaccurate.
Click to expand...
What was incorrect or inaccurate? My opinion is that not all of his problems are physical in nature. He stated that his game was "close" many times in the last several months, and that his back and knees were fine. He also said that he wouldn't enter a tournament if he didn't think he could win. He entered tournaments, so he must have thought that his game was ready.

I kept reading about him shooting 63's and 65's every day at his home course. His problem is that he can't transfer his game to a tour event. I have seen him chunk and skull chips. I have seen him hit shots out of greenside bunkers that were nowhere near the hole, when they use to be 5 close. I have seen him make multiple doubles in a round when he never did before. That is not injuries. It's in his head now.

I don't think that he is withdrawing due to injury as much as he realizes he doesn't have it, and gets tired of shooting 75's. Several golfers play with nagging injuries, but they never seem to withdraw when they shoot 68. Woods didn't withdraw when he beat Rocco, did he? He was hurt then. He may have had back spasms which caused his withdrawal from Dubai, but back spasms don't usually last more than 3 or 4 days.

I think that he is totally lost on his golf swing at the moment. He may get it back, but I am not at all confident that he will. I think that if he had never worked out, and had never changed his swing from college, that he may have already won 20 Majors. I mean he won the Masters by 12 with his barely out of college game.
 
#2,196
#2,196
1972 Grad said:
I was trying to give some perspective that some others may not be aware of. If you played with persimmon woods and wound balls, don't read it. You already know. The feathery was a bit before my day.
Click to expand...

I was probably in the last wave of Junior golfers to play Persimmon woods. They were definitely shorter and less forgiving. But I used to love playing the old balata balls around the green. You didn't have to work nearly as hard to create spin.
 
#2,197
#2,197
GAVol said:
I was probably in the last wave of Junior golfers to play Persimmon woods. They were definitely shorter and less forgiving. But I used to love playing the old balata balls around the green. You didn't have to work nearly as hard to create spin.
Click to expand...
How did you like hitting a persimmon or laminated maple 3 wood of a downhill lie? Not too easy to get airborne, huh? The wound, soft cover balls were nice around the greens.
 
#2,198
#2,198
I didn't realize that Tiger even teed it up in Dubai, until I just read about it. He was interviewed after his 5 bogey, no birdie 77, and said that he felt fine, and was in no pain. He thought that if he could go out the next day, and shoot 5 under, and get back to even, that winning the tournament wasn't out of the question.

At first I thought that maybe he didn't even make the trip, due to his back. I can't imagine anyone with serious back problems would even consider a 17 hour flight.
 
#2,199
#2,199
1972 Grad said:
I know that you and doozer don't like me because I'm not a Tiger Woods fan. The fact is that golf was here long before Tiger, and will be here long after he's gone. He is not bigger than the game. The game is in good hands with Spieth, Day, McIlroy, Johnson, Fowler, etc. I am a fan of the game.

You should appreciate fans of the game because we have something in common. I couldn't care less if you didn't like Jordan Spieth. Why does it bother you two that I don't like Tiger?
Click to expand...

I don't like Tiger Woods; I don't like that he gets non-stop coverage on ESPN, The Golf Channel, etc. It's honestly a bit pathetic in some ways.

But the problem is they do that because like or not, he generates ratings. Interest and ratings fall when he's not playing, and that's not even debatable. So you say golf will be fine without him, and yeah it's not like it's going away, but it's not exactly a good thing that by far the biggest draw is a broken down 40 something who can barely get through a handful of tournaments before he has to take a break again.

So while you say you like it fine, you're so far in the miniority. As far as the field of golfers, top to bottom it's probably stronger than ever, but none of them are generating the buzz Woods did. Spieth may be the closest but he's going to have to go on a tear of winning to get even close to the buzz Woods generated.

And again, this is from someone who doesn't care if Woods ever plays another hole of golf.
 
#2,200
#2,200
VolsSportsFan said:
I don't like Tiger Woods; I don't like that he gets non-stop coverage on ESPN, The Golf Channel, etc. It's honestly a bit pathetic in some ways.

But the problem is they do that because like or not, he generates ratings. Interest and ratings fall when he's not playing, and that's not even debatable. So you say golf will be fine without him, and yeah it's not like it's going away, but it's not exactly a good thing that by far the biggest draw is a broken down 40 something who can barely get through a handful of tournaments before he has to take a break again.

So while you say you like it fine, you're so far in the miniority. As far as the field of golfers, top to bottom it's probably stronger than ever, but none of them are generating the buzz Woods did. Spieth may be the closest but he's going to have to go on a tear of winning to get even close to the buzz Woods generated.

And again, this is from someone who doesn't care if Woods ever plays another hole of golf.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with anything you said. Tiger brought more people into the game, but most didn't stick with it, because it is much more difficult, and took much more time than they realized.

The number of golfers in the U.S. has settled back into the same numbers as pre-Tiger. In 1995, there were 24.7 million golfers who played, or went to practice facilities at least once per year. 16.6 million are considered "core golfers" because they play at least 8 rounds per year.

After growing to nearly 30 million golfers in the U.S. in 2008, participation has steadily gone down. We are now back to slightly less than 25 million, which is the same as 1995. So, I think that Tiger temporarily brought people into the game. Of course, the First Tee program has grown the game also. My point is that the game is where it was pre-Tiger, as far as participation goes. It doesn't seem like the "buzz" that he generated lasted.

Undoubtedly, people like doozer and volfan turn on the tv to watch their Tiger play, and probably sit it out when he doesn't, but I don't consider people like that as true golf fans. They are idol worshippers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top