The Tiger Woods Thread

Think he will myself assuming he is healthy enough

If he plays like he played in his most recent tournaments augusta could embarrass him. I would hate to see that.

If he plays and isn't up to standard it was make the coverage unbearable, he'll get all the air time and it was take away from the actual good golf.

He's on the invite list which is no surprise and he is not listed among the previous champions who are not playing (Palmer, Nicklaus, Player etc.) so he hasn't told them that he is not playing.....

http://www.masters.com/en_US/players/invitees_2015.html

CBS Sports (who are covering it live in the US) say he will play ....

http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/25128707/report-it-looks-like-tiger-woods-will-play-the-masters

Golf.com has an interesting slant on it based on the fact that the Masters has no alternates (standby/waiting list) so if he doesn't play, there will simply be one less in the field. They say he has until his tee time on Thursday to decide ...

Unlike PGA Tour events, the Masters does not require invited players to commit to playing on the Friday before the tournament. Instead, Woods has until his first round tee time on Thursday, April 9, to decide if he is fit to play, according to an Augusta National spokesman.

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-can-wait-until-first-round-tee-time-commit-masters

dball wrote: »

what boulder - did i miss something?

Old story.......

First Up,

I haven't' missed a major without Tiger - but I don't enjoy them as much.

Tiger was able to do things that others couldn't - it was amazing to watch.

Every sport - needs people like Tiger - a joy to watch the best ever at a sport.

McIlroy is maturing into that - but it has been a slow build, maybe too slow - Rory hasn't had that almost crazy desire. He is moving that way.

But Tiger is up there, with anything I've seen in any sport (and watch most) - we can't underestimate the impact his demise has - on the sport - for many golf fans and the general public.

It is tricky - as everything was about Tiger - so almost your perspective was controlled by the media. Yes perhaps it is hard to see full picture - when the event was about Tiger.

But - I do genuinely think he could do things others couldn't - anyway, even producing great moments more consistently - is important , very, for a sport. Like Messi - O'Driscoll - O'Sullivan - Bolt - it is what the public want. Do we want the public to be into golf ? - or just us golf nerds ?

Yes we are golf fans - and we would watch any golfer - doing anything, sure I often watch 20 handicappers from the balcony at the clubhouse. I enjoy watching anyone hit a ball - the ups and downs of a great or bad shot.

But - besides that , I do think that Tiger could do things others couldn't - bringing real power into the game - using this to get out of rough (as he had to too often) - using height to get over stuff - shape - distance , punch - stinger , drilling short to mid range putts.
He also had a psychological edge (miles ahead) of others he played against. Even red on Sunday, was simple, crude and genius.

His style of golf was his own, nobody tried to model him. The modern pro is in gym etc. But we do have to remember , Tiger's physicality was ground breaking.

I think it will be harder to get that edge he had over others - most guys have the same science going into their game. The sport was lagging Tiger at his time.

Tiger Woods with industry behind him - invented the modern Golf star.

The reality of Tiger didn't match the image - but he changed the game.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It is tricky - as everything was about Tiger - so almost your perspective was controlled by the media. Yes perhaps it is hard to see full picture - when the event was about Tiger.

But - I do genuinely think he could do things others couldn't - anyway, even producing great moments more consistently - is important , very, for a sport. Like Messi - O'Driscoll - O'Sullivan - Bolt - it is what the public want. Do we want the public to be into golf ? - or just us golf nerds ?

Yes we are golf fans - and we would watch any golfer - doing anything, sure I often watch 20 handicappers from the balcony at the clubhouse. I enjoy watching anyone hit a ball - the ups and downs of a great or bad shot.

But - besides that , I do think that Tiger could do things others couldn't - bringing real power into the game - using this to get out of rough (as he had to too often) - using height to get over stuff - shape - distance , punch - stinger , drilling short to mid range putts.
He also had a psychological edge (miles ahead) of other he played against. Even red on Sunday was simple crude and genius.

His style of golf was his own, nobody tried to model him. The modern pro is in gym etc. But we do have to remember , Tiger's physicality was ground breaking.

I think it will be harder to get that edge he had over others - most guys have the same science going into their game. The sport was lagging Tiger at his time.

Tiger Woods with industry behind him - invented the modern Golf star.

The reality of Tiger didn't match the image - but he changed the game.

This is a golf forum so I would expect most of us to have a broad interest in the game. That is not the case for many "Tiger fans" and I don't think they will be any loss or be missed.
The killer for me some years ago was a sports bulletin on a US tv station whose piece on a tournament consisted of telling us that Tiger was 3 off the lead - noghing more.
He changed the game but not always for the better.

And also the first billionaire sports person!

I don't like the bloke. As a bloke , in fact - just to be funny hypothetical, he is not the sort of lad I would like to play golf with and have a few pints after.

But - I'm able to put that to the side , and see what he has done - not only for golf. But the significance of golf.
I dislike many aspects of the modern game - technology and stupid clothing - green rubbish from Nike on front of Golf Monthly and on Rory.

But - modern golf is not for me - it is for the young. There seems an irony, that an ancient game is modernising almost faster than any other.

It is a little like the Roy Keane thing now in a way. There is the Tiger versus No Tiger - it seems the argument is in the extremes.

But anyway - my view is mine. Golf has changed , and is not going back.
It needed to change, as was a little irrelevant.

Tiger was the start of golf modernity.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I agree some of the stuff was not good - but before Tiger , golf was considered , closed , elite, racists, sexist , out of date , for the old. Up to you which parts of that you consider good.

It is a golf forum - and golf had a golden era for the middle classes , behind closed gates and high walls. I'm not getting into if that was a good or a bad thing.

But at some stage - youth, culture and modern reality, challenges all structures of society.

A golf forum was not even invented 10 years ago - and this mean nothing.

What Tiger did meant something, Tiger challenged every cultural aspect of the game, won everything, was the best by miles.

He introduced the non core public to golf.

Yes, this may be a "bad" thing - but every pro out there knows , they are wealthier and of more significance as a consequence of Tiger.
There are very , very, few people that have ever made that sort of change , in all fields of life.

Replacing of Tiger is a real serious issue for the game.
There is hope in Rory - but only hope.

Golf is hardly at the forefront of modern life. Tiger was a forefront of a modern life.

I don't wish to get into an argument but golf before Woods was not for the old or elitist or racist (in UK/Ireland). I've played since a kid and never ever saw this at all. Most golf clubs did a lot for the development of youth golf. There were no closed gates nor high walls and anyone who really believes that didn't try too hard. Tiger didn't challenge anything nor did he change anything apart from the money and interest. He certainly didn't actively do much to change the game or how it is run.

What he did was play much better than the rest and had a drive and desire greater than the others. In my opinion the focus on him is and was detrimental (not Tiger's fault) and we are seeing it here in this forum. People bought into him completely and didn't see the others who were simply also-rans. Now that Woods is in decline you hear people say that golf is now boring. Well it never has been for me apart from when the TV coverage shows every one of Woods' shots when he has no hope of winning and shows about one shot of the guy lying third. I can remember watching TV to see how one of the Irish players was doing only to see one of his shots in 4 rounds even though he finished in the top 10.

There are loads of fine golfers around that can do things that us amateurs can only dream of. Golf will go on and maybe the "internet generation" will appreciate that it's OK to watch the guys in contention rather than focus on one player.

When I go to tournaments I follow the local guys even those who many won't have heard about. I'd much prefer to see one of them winning a Major than anyone else.

Tilikum wrote: »

I started playing just less than 20 yrs ago. The only reason I started, was my auld lad got me in to our club. Only for him id never have started or had the €10k to join now. 20 yrs ago I was slated for playing....everyone of my mates slagged me for playing that ol' farts sport.

Now 99% of my friends play. That's because of tiger woods. He changed the game from ol farts in cardigans to what it is today.

If it wasn't for the golf, there's some mates id never see anymore as they're married now with kids. Tiger is reason I get to see them every weekend.

Nice story but the numbers playing golf in the US have declined from 30 million to 23 million since 2002 and the biggest decline is amongst under 35's - the category that should identify most with Tiger and the "modernity" he represents. Similar story in Ireland and UK.

kiers47 wrote: »

Not for or against Tiger. But its safe to say the downturn in the economy is the main reason for this downturn and anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.

Blaming 1 man for 7 million people is ridiculous.

I'm not blaming him for anything; I am challenging the belief that he has been "good for the game" and asking how his contribution can be measured. 'Cos it obviously isn't in the numbers taking up the game.