Tiger Woods is Back!!

[/QUOTE]Cool. Golf's a great game.No doubt Tiger brought an expansion to the game. Question is whether it's sustainablePost
or not. Lotta courses closing the doors these days.[/QUOTE]

I think this has much more to do with the economy and cost of golf, than with emanating pro golfers.

Most of your arguments Kansas are weak.

Tiger's legacy on golf and giving back is far from over, and as those great golfers before him, their's didn't even begin until their competitive playing days were complete. A mentioned, Tiger has already several areas where hes given back.

Tigers "return" to golf, and now winning, is more important to the game being viewed than any other single golfer at this time. Ask any of the tournament directors or networks.
 
uihawk82 said:
I dont disagreee that Tiger may be the best golfer that ever lived. Nicklaus never worked on his short game on into the green as his iron accuracy was great and he was a great putter. But I really disagree with this statement about the playing fields that Tiger has destroyed.

Arnold had to play against Hogan and Nicklaus and Trevino and these three players were way better than most of today's worldwide golfers. Nicklaus was competing with many more players who won 3+ majors in their careers, such as , Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Faldo, Seve, etc.

Man, if you think Tiger has played against stronger fields in the majors you dont know golf. Tiger may have played against deeper fields from #2 to #150 in the field but definitely not the level of golfers who showed they could win majors time in and time out.

I am waiting to see how tiger attacks augusta with his new high fade as the course really sets up for draws from a right hander.
Click to expand...


I don't know golf??? them's fighten words. we'll agree to disagree but if you think the fields were deeper in the 60's, 70's, and 80's than now... well, your opinion is your opinion. I respect the game, love the guys that made it what it is today. Honestley, until Tiger wins 5 more majors and 11 more tournaments and goes above Jack and Slammin Sammy then he can't really be called the greatest ever. Your right that the upper echelon was tougher in the past, but once you got about 10 down the field, those guys hardly ever won. You have about 50 guys today that can get hot any given weekend and win....not so much in the past....

Just don't tell me I don't know golf, because I do and outside of my family and of course Hawkeye Sports, it's my biggest passion. I played about 60 rounds last year, watched the top 20 tourneys, read the books and digest, go to the range, and carry an 8 handicap.

We'll agree to disagree...or not.
 
There are two distinct, separate topics being discussed and one really has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

On the topic of Tiger as a golfer, he is obviously the best of his generation....without question. But to try to compare him to Jack or compare Jack to Bobby Jones or Bobby Jones to Sam Snead is really pointless. Different times, different equipment, different courses. I've always wondered why we seem to be obsessed with arguing who the "best" is.....Jack dominated his era and Tiger dominated his era. They're both head and shoulders above any other golfer who lived. As far as Tiger being back, it's definitely premature. He just won a tournament that he won 6 times prior....that's essentially his "home course". Let's see him play a major before we annoint him as "back".

On the topic of Tiger as a human being, as it is with every other person, it's a mixed bag. As a serial adulterer and self-described as feeling "entitled", he certainly has some serious character flaws that need to be addressed. Those actions affected not only his personal and financial life, but affected innocent people as well.....namely his children. As an athlete in the public eye whose financial well-being is derived from fans of his, he is certainly held to a higher standard than the "average" person....there is no denying that and anyone who says differently is just burying their head in the sand. And justifying it by saying "well, everyone else does it" is something I wouldn't even expect my 7 yr old son to say. However, we all have character flaws that need to be worked on every day and to simply villify a man for his character flaws to make yourself feel better is simply pathetic. We all have our own houses to get in order before worrying about other people getting theirs in order. We're all going to make mistakes in judgement and make selfish choices in life.....it's inescapable. But what people do when confronted with the results of those bad choices is what defines us. It remains to be seen if Tiger truly has changed or not.....I, for one, hope he has.
 
HawkeyeWalker said:
I don't know golf??? them's fighten words. we'll agree to disagree but if you think the fields were deeper in the 60's, 70's, and 80's than now... well, your opinion is your opinion. I respect the game, love the guys that made it what it is today. Honestley, until Tiger wins 5 more majors and 11 more tournaments and goes above Jack and Slammin Sammy then he can't really be called the greatest ever. Your right that the upper echelon was tougher in the past, but once you got about 10 down the field, those guys hardly ever won. You have about 50 guys today that can get hot any given weekend and win....not so much in the past....

Just don't tell me I don't know golf, because I do and outside of my family and of course Hawkeye Sports, it's my biggest passion. I played about 60 rounds last year, watched the top 20 tourneys, read the books and digest, go to the range, and carry an 8 handicap.

We'll agree to disagree...or not.
Click to expand...

There are tons more better golfers now than there was then, and I don't think it's close. Hell, even those old guys will admit that. They will probably say they don't know how to win yet, but most of that is because of a man named Tiger Woods.
 
azhawkphan said:
OK, I was going to not respond to this thread as others have so eloquently stated what I think in regards to Tiger. His personal life is none of our business, for that matter celebrity or not, we as a people are way too infatuated with other's personal lives, IMO.

But when I read the bolded part above, I have to get on my soapbox now. Why do people think that making money has come easily for Tiger (or anybody that has achieved some level of success)? He has made sacrifices that are unfathomable to most people... from childhood until today. But just because he has sacrificed so much to be in this position today is not why he makes so much money. He has turned all that studying/practicing into being the best at his sport. From mental preparation, daily nutrition, daily exercise program, practice regimen, his all around golf game... he has changed the sport for the better. But this is still not why he gets paid so much money.

He gets paid so much money because of the number of people that buy tickets to the tournaments he has entered, the number of people that watch a golf tournament he is playing in on tv, and the number of people that buy the goods and services of the companies he respresents. Hell he doesn't even need to be at or near the lead for people to tune in when he is playing. He is one of the few people that moves the dial... globally. He has truly brought golf to the masses... globally. The reason so many people tune in to watch him play is to witness greatness. Being great has been turned into something ugly in America these days, so much so that people are starved to see it when it is around. I know that I am.

He has the Tiger Woods Foundation, the Tiger Woods Learning Center, and other charities that he works with. Um, so he does give back to the sport/people. Whether that is enough for people, not sure it really matters in the end. Don't think he can ever do enough to satisfy most people.

So we can disagree on whether we should root for Tiger, but please, people, do not think that making money comes easily for Tiger. He just makes it look easy.
Click to expand...

Well said.....
 
its easy for someone to judge what tiger did when they go to their office job every day then go straight home and sit on the couch all evening. heck most people who judge couldn't even get another woman to look their way let alone sleep with them.

when you're a professional athlete not only are woman lining up to bang you, you have all the opportunities in the world because you are constantly away from your wife. I'm sure what happens is they turn down girl after girl. then sooner or later the perfect opportunity comes along. maybe she is smokin hot, maybe your drunk, or maybe you just got in a fight with your wife. whatever the reason once the door is opened it would get easier and easier and before you know it your hitting the waitress at Perkins.

the only thing I blame tiger for is getting married in the 1st place, because if i was him the only way I would be able to not cheat on my wife would be to not have one.
 
The ebb and flows of golf what a glorious game it is. Sure Tiger struggled, but so did many other Top ranked golfers this weekend. Tiger isn't done winning majors. People need some perspective on here Tiger has played in what 62 or 62 majors winning 14 that is a winning percentage of 22%. Jack played in 160 and one 18 a little over 10%.

BTW-- Congrats to Bubba that was an awesome Masters to watch.
 
Golf today may be deeper in terms of the sheer number of talented golfers...there's no denying that.

However, back when Jack was in his prime, there were more golfers that were close to his skill level than there are/were golfers close to Tiger's skill level in his prime.

Other than Phil, how many other multiple major winners are there during Tiger's prime? There's Padraig, but he didn't start winning until after Tiger was out with an injury.

During Jack's time, you had Arnie, Billy Casper, Johnny Miller, Tom Watson, Gary Player, Lee Trevino and a host of others.

Which is the tougher? To win in an era that's top loaded with talent or to win in an era that's deep in numbers? I say it's the former.
 
SpiderRico said:
Golf today may be deeper in terms of the sheer number of talented golfers...there's no denying that.

However, back when Jack was in his prime, there were more golfers that were close to his skill level than there are/were golfers close to Tiger's skill level in his prime.

Other than Phil, how many other multiple major winners are there during Tiger's prime? There's Padraig, but he didn't start winning until after Tiger was out with an injury.

During Jack's time, you had Arnie, Billy Casper, Johnny Miller, Tom Watson, Gary Player, Lee Trevino and a host of others.

Which is the tougher? To win in an era that's top loaded with talent or to win in an era that's deep in numbers? I say it's the former.
Click to expand...

But can you say that if the talent was this deep back then that all of those guys would win multiple majors? Maybe there is a much deeper depth in talent which provides for more one time winners than multiples? That means there are more guys that have potential to win it every time. I'd say that is tougher.

Also you have to give the young guys time to accumulate multiple majors. I think Rory will get more than one and Louis O almost did, I'm sure Bubba will contend etc. Just because you have 20 year careers of those guys in the past isn't saying 20 years from now we can look back and say that not only was the field deep, but had great top end players.
 
hawkfarmer said:
But can you say that if the talent was this deep back then that all of those guys would win multiple majors? Maybe there is a much deeper depth in talent which provides for more one time winners than multiples? That means there are more guys that have potential to win it every time. I'd say that is tougher.

Also you have to give the young guys time to accumulate multiple majors. I think Rory will get more than one and Louis O almost did, I'm sure Bubba will contend etc. Just because you have 20 year careers of those guys in the past isn't saying 20 years from now we can look back and say that not only was the field deep, but had great top end players.
Click to expand...

But even if they do, they'll be doing it when the most dominant player of his generation is past his prime.

The guys I listed (Watson, Seve, Player, etc) all got multiple majors when Jack was in his prime.
 
I won't argue that, but other guys still won plenty of majors during that time. Also, Jack's prime was much longer than Tigers seems to be, is that due to his talent or others that he played with? I don't know. Anyway there is still the argument that the depth may have been deeper limiting multiple winners, not saying this is the case, but to me arguing best when they can't go head to head is a waste of time.
 
hawkfarmer said:
I won't argue that, but other guys still won plenty of majors during that time. Also, Jack's prime was much longer than Tigers seems to be, is that due to his talent or others that he played with? I don't know. Anyway there is still the argument that the depth may have been deeper limiting multiple winners, not saying this is the case, but to me arguing best when they can't go head to head is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

I'll never argue who was best between Tiger and Jack because it is a waste of time. Different course layouts, different equipment, different eras. However, I do think it's an interesting discussion when the topic revolves around their competition. I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer here......but if I were a great player, I think it'd be much easier to play against a lot of good guys than to play against a handful of guys that are HOF caliber.

The only guy I can think of that Tiger competed against that was HOF caliber in his prime is Phil. The rest of the field he competed against was just a bunch of pretty good players.
 
SpiderRico said:
I'll never argue who was best between Tiger and Jack because it is a waste of time. Different course layouts, different equipment, different eras. However, I do think it's an interesting discussion when the topic revolves around their competition. I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer here......but if I were a great player, I think it'd be much easier to play against a lot of good guys than to play against a handful of guys that are HOF caliber.

The only guy I can think of that Tiger competed against that was HOF caliber in his prime is Phil. The rest of the field he competed against was just a bunch of pretty good players.
Click to expand...

You must mean BR (before Roids) & AR (after Roids) eras.
 
HawkPrdatr40 said:
You crack me up SayHawk. Really you think Tiger was on roids?? hahahaha seen it all now.
Click to expand...

If you are totally dismissing the possibility that Tiger took steroids/HGH, I think you are the one that needs a reality check. I am not in any way insinuating that he took them, but there is certainly room for speculation.
 
herkyattack said:
If you are totally dismissing the possibility that Tiger took steroids/HGH, I think you are the one that needs a reality check. I am not in any way insinuating that he took them, but there is certainly room for speculation.
Click to expand...

Golf and roids..You seriously think that Tiger would put his career in jeopardy with roids? look at the golfers on the tour the past 10 years, show me one that is on roids..

Fact is that Tiger hasn't noticeably gotten bigger in a short period of time. He's bigger now than when he was 17 but come on, so is everyone else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top