Tiger WOW!!!

[Hacker]

Where in this thread did you substantiate your original statement that Tiger is the best golfer ever? You offered some circumstantial evidence that he is the most popular golfer currently on tour, but popularity does not equal accomplishment.

That said, you have been on this forum long enough to realise what kind of a response a 'Tiger is the best golfer ever' statement will bring. Plenty of people disagree with that statement, and they're allowed to. It's not provable, it's a subjective opinion. Even if you had tried to back up your original statement, that doesn't excuse calling people you disagree with 'haters'. It's silly and basically just baiting the kind of response you are say you are offended by.

You can choose to call a spade a shovel if that is what makes you feel better but it is what it is. To me the level of negativity that is consistently spouted against Tiger equates to hate.

Hate/Dislike, Spade/Shovel, Moderate/Instigate I guess it really depends where one sits

[spackler]

You can choose to call a spade a shovel if that is what makes you feel better but it is what it is. To me the level of negativity that is consistently spouted against Tiger equates to hate.

Hate/Dislike, Spade/Shovel, Moderate/Instigate I guess it really depends where one sits

Statements like:

Rather than stand in the shadows and snipe why don't you tell us all who you think the "Greatest Ever" is

Regardless, what is clear is that you are a Tiger hater....

but I guess once you're a hater you're always a hater and you will continue to voice said hatred whether it is on topic or not

I might suggest that you put down your dictionary and actually check on a few facts before you go slinging stones.

in response to posts, do not tend to encourage thoughtful debate.

[Hacker]

Statements like:



in response to posts, do not tend to encourage thoughtful debate.

So I guess you choose instigate over moderate....

[Colby]

Jon the TV numbers show a very strong correlation between viewership and Tiger's participation - when Tiger plays, more people tune in period not refutable. When Tiger isn't playing the nuber of households tuning in goes down - it is a fact. You have argued that millions lover Tiger and millions dislike him.....if these two camps were more or less than same size would it not stand to reason that viewership should NOT be influenced in any way by Tiger's participation?? Tiger is out, those who dislike him watch. Tiger is in, those who dislike him don't watch.

Come to think of it, viewership should actually be up when Tiger is out since the millions and millions that dislike him would be watching in addition to those of us who like him....

I can't speak for all of the people who are members of the "Anyone but Tiger" club, however the only golf I watch on TV anymore is the Masters because it is the Masters. Tiger has basically ruined watching professional golf for me because even when he is not in the field, the announcers are almost always talking about him, like there is something in their contract that requires them to say Tiger's name every 20th word. The networks show Tiger the majority of the time even when he is out of contention in the tournaments he plays in.

And I don't miss it at all. I would rather be playing golf than watching it.

[Slicer&Dicer]

While I think almost anyone with a half brain would love to have Tiger's abilities, I don't like Tiger and probably never will.

I wonder if Jack/Arnold or Gary ever cursed and smacked the ground like your so called "Greatest golfer ever"?

Gofl is usually called a gentlemen's game and I don't think Tiger can ever be the gentlemen that the greats above are.

Sure he has talent but he is not humble at all.

Watching Tiger play amazing to me (IMO) is BORING, there I said it. It is expected and no big surprise.

He is certainly overpaid, and getting a $4 million appearance fee to go to Australia is ridiculous. I wonder if Gary Player and Ernie Els ever got paid to promote golf worldwide.

I don't care if he ever plays in Canada again, we will always have a great Canadian Open tournament.

What will everyone do if Tiger ever passes Jack's records, then what is next?

Tiger was happy golf was approved for the Olympics but joked if he was not retired by then. I think if he stops winning on a regular basis, then he will quit and "Save the world" as his dad once suggested.

Why don't these rich Billionaires (Tiger, Bill Gates, etc.) put their money together and cure cancer, aids, world hunger, etc. insteading of just educating a few thousand kids.

Ah, Tiger is great when he is on, but I much rather watch highlights of his screwing up royally as this is more rare.

You can love him or hate him, I think he still has a long way to go as being a true gracious hero of the game. I much rather Phil and Mike, Arnold , Jack, etc. anyday, anyday.

We will never know how a Jack and a Tiger in the same era, with the same technolgy would have compared. By the way, Jack and the boys were hitting 300 yd drives back in the day with the old real woods so don't think a 300 yd drive today is like the most incredible thing ever, today this is almost like a standard length for pros.

I thing Tiger has made most of his scoring over the years on par 5's because of his length, he hasn't always been that good on par 4 and 3's.

Regardless of who ever is called the "greatest", no one and I mean no one will ever be greater than the game itself.

[Slicer&Dicer]

Oh, yeah someone above mentioned that Tiger gets so much attention even when he isn't playing well.

This is so True, I watched them showing him eating a banana while waiting to play instead of showing someone actually playing - Give me a break.

Also, the glance from his eyes when Yang made that last putt on the 18th to win was absolutely pricelss! I knew Tiger wouldn't make his putt after that regardless of how mentally tough you think he is.

IMO he hasn't been challenged enough when he is playing well, hopefully that might change next year, or the year after or .....

[jonf]

Jon the TV numbers show a very strong correlation between viewership and Tiger's participation - when Tiger plays, more people tune in period not refutable. When Tiger isn't playing the nuber of households tuning in goes down - it is a fact. You have argued that millions lover Tiger and millions dislike him.....if these two camps were more or less than same size would it not stand to reason that viewership should NOT be influenced in any way by Tiger's participation?? Tiger is out, those who dislike him watch. Tiger is in, those who dislike him don't watch.

Your argument here assumes that in order to want to watch a golfer, you have to like that golfer. This, is obviously, a fallacy. People who do not like Tiger may turn in more when he is playing in hopes of seeing him get beaten (see the PGA championship). As I suggested earlier, people may turn away when Tiger isn't playing because they get sick of analysts who don't know enough about the other players in the field to make intelligent commentary, and end up prattling on about Tiger, even though he's injured. As I said before, I am not refuting that fewer tuned in when Tiger wasn't playing. But you are making unsubstantiated assumptions about the reasons for that.

Come to think of it, viewership should actually be up when Tiger is out since the millions and millions that dislike him would be watching in addition to those of us who like him....

This falsely assumes that all Tiger lovers will tune in even if he isn't playing. This line of reasoning also (puzzlingly) directly contradicts your initial viewership argument, which assumes that Tiger lovers did not tune in to watch because he wasn't playing.

[jonf]

Also, I use the term hater/lover not because they are accurate, but because they are simple. I don't think there are any Tiger 'haters' out there who hate the man. I classify myself as a 'hater' but I have no personal vendetta against him...I wish him no ill, and he seems like a perfectly nice guy. I admire his skill and his competitiveness. That said, I just don't like the guy, and will never cheer for him (sort of like you, Hacker, and Mr. Crosby). It's unfortunate, because it's not really because of anything he has done. He has not forced analysts to blather on about him for 99 percent of any broadcast, but they do, and that is a big reason for my Tiger 'hate'.

So, keep in mind, nobody here LOVES tiger, and nobody really HATES him. We just like him or not, as the case may be.

[fundonny]

Is this thread S T I L L open?????

[Kilroy]

Is this thread S T I L L open?????

Yes it is. Debate is OK. As long as it remains civil it will remain open.

[Hacker]

Your argument here assumes that in order to want to watch a golfer, you have to like that golfer. This, is obviously, a fallacy.

Well I guess I am only speaking for myself, but I would say that a significant percentage of the population would not watch a person, team, band, etc. that they dislike - can I quote an exact figure? NO, but then again you don't use any "facts" to back up your claims either so I guess we're good on that point. What I will say is that it is reasonable to assume that if someone dislikes someone or something they won't watch him/her/it.

People who do not like Tiger may turn in more when he is playing in hopes of seeing him get beaten (see the PGA championship).

I suppose that is plausible, but said folks end up disappointed more often than not. Woods is 14-1 when going into the final round of a major with a share of the lead, he is 48-4 when holding a share of the 54 hole lead, 37-2 when holding the outright 54 hole lead, he has only lost once when having a lead greater than 1 after 54 holes.

I can see why his distractors tune in to see him lose......it happens all the time right?

This falsely assumes that all Tiger lovers will tune in even if he isn't playing. This line of reasoning also (puzzlingly) directly contradicts your initial viewership argument, which assumes that Tiger lovers did not tune in to watch because he wasn't playing.

Close, but not quite, this assumes that all Tiger fans who are also true fans will tune in to watch. I don't think that the casual golf fan will tune into the non-Tiger events. I think that true golf fans will watch regardless of whether Tiger is playing or not, making them mute for the purposes of this discussion. What I'm saying here is that:

Those who dislike Tiger > Casual Golf fans

Of course I don't actually believe the equation above, but in an earlier post you were talking about the "millions and millions" of fans who didn't like Tiger if this number was anywhere close to the number of people of like Tiger and like watching him play then, in theory, my the equation above could be correct. Again, this is based on the "assumptions" that:

1. Normal people don't watch something they don't like
2. True golf fans > casual golf fans

[SGH]

I think what's missed in all this is that there aren't lot of other golfers that people love to hate. FIGJAM maybe, so there's one. But who else do a lot of people root against? Not many, if any, that I can think of.

The best comparison would be Crosby. He's got tons of fans, but there seem to be a lot of people who love to root against him as well.

Tiger's no different in this respect. I doubt anyone will argue that Tiger's the most popular golfer on tour. But if you define "unpopular" as having the most people rooting against him, I'd have to agree. If not, who is the most unpopular using that parameter? Mickleson's my only guess.

[Hacker]

While I think almost anyone with a half brain would love to have Tiger's abilities, I don't like Tiger and probably never will.

I wonder if Jack/Arnold or Gary ever cursed and smacked the ground like your so called "Greatest golfer ever"?

Yup, cursing and smacking the ground after a bad shot are bad....but we must not forget about Arnie's smoking and drinking - now there are a couple of qualities that we should try to instill into our youth.

Sure he has talent but he is not humble at all.

So?? Humility isn't exactly a strong suit in most athletes, be they a superstar or not

Watching Tiger play amazing to me (IMO) is BORING, there I said it. It is expected and no big surprise.

So you prefer to watch guys struggle to make pars? You like seeing guys hacking it up? We should play a round sometime, you'd have a prime seat for some of the best hacking out there

He is certainly overpaid, and getting a $4 million appearance fee to go to Australia is ridiculous. I wonder if Gary Player and Ernie Els ever got paid to promote golf worldwide.

Sorry, Ernie Els isn't even close to being in the same league as Tiger. I have a TON of respect for Gary but even he doesn't bring in the people and the money that Tiger does - doesn't make it right, but $$ makes the world go around

Why don't these rich Billionaires (Tiger, Bill Gates, etc.) put their money together and cure cancer, aids, world hunger, etc. insteading of just educating a few thousand kids.

Would you like to invoke the 24 hour take back rule on this one?? How anyone can find fault in creating an organization to help educate our youth is beyond me......what if one of those children is the one who eventually does find the cure to cancer or aids??

I thing Tiger has made most of his scoring over the years on par 5's because of his length, he hasn't always been that good on par 4 and 3's.

Really? 2009 Tiger is currently 13th in Par 3 birdies with 16.13% and 39th in Par 4 birdies with 17.46%. He lead the tour in 2008 for Par 4 birdies with 19.81% and was 20th in Par 3 birds with 15%. He was 3rd in Par 4 birds in 2007 and 1st in Par 4 birds in 2006 - Sounds to me like he's managed to get it around and score a little on the par 3s and 4s

Regardless of who ever is called the "greatest", no one and I mean no one will ever be greater than the game itself.

Agreed!!

[jonf]

Well I guess I am only speaking for myself, but I would say that a significant percentage of the population would not watch a person, team, band, etc. that they dislike - can I quote an exact figure? NO, but then again you don't use any "facts" to back up your claims either so I guess we're good on that point. What I will say is that it is reasonable to assume that if someone dislikes someone or something they won't watch him/her/it.

And there, folks, we have the crux of the issue, brilliantly and inadvertently summed up by Hacker.

This statement assumes that Tiger is the only one on the course. It is, of course, a telling assumption, as it is the same one that all the networks and all the commentators make. But, believe it or not there are actually people who tune in in hopes of watching the GOLF, not the Tiger show. Your general attitude here is exactly the problem, and the reason why so many are fed up with Tiger.

I suppose that is plausible, but said folks end up disappointed more often than not. Woods is 14-1 when going into the final round of a major with a share of the lead, he is 48-4 when holding a share of the 54 hole lead, 37-2 when holding the outright 54 hole lead, he has only lost once when having a lead greater than 1 after 54 holes.

I can see why his distractors tune in to see him lose......it happens all the time right?

This is why we watch sports. Because anything can happen, anyone can win. When a YE Yang comes along....then we can bring on the gloat! Sure, Tiger's detractors usually walk away dissappointed, but welcome to sports. I don't religiously watch Bills games every Sunday in hopes they will lose. Leaf fans still tune in every night. If only the winner's fans watched, professional sports would have died a long time ago.

It would also help explain the drop in viewers when Tiger is gone. No great villain left to cheer against. Why does the WWE have the heel? Because fans like having someone to go against.

Close, but not quite, this assumes that all Tiger fans who are also true fans will tune in to watch. I don't think that the casual golf fan will tune into the non-Tiger events. I think that true golf fans will watch regardless of whether Tiger is playing or not, making them mute for the purposes of this discussion. What I'm saying here is that:

Those who dislike Tiger > Casual Golf fans

Of course I don't actually believe the equation above, but in an earlier post you were talking about the "millions and millions" of fans who didn't like Tiger if this number was anywhere close to the number of people of like Tiger and like watching him play then, in theory, my the equation above could be correct. Again, this is based on the "assumptions" that:

1. Normal people don't watch something they don't like
2. True golf fans > casual golf fans

For the record, never once have i mentioned millions of millions. You wanted hard facts so the only numbers I used were the 100% of my family members who cheer against Tiger.

[Hacker]

And there, folks, we have the crux of the issue, brilliantly and inadvertently summed up by Hacker.

This statement assumes that Tiger is the only one on the course. It is, of course, a telling assumption, as it is the same one that all the networks and all the commentators make. But, believe it or not there are actually people who tune in in hopes of watching the GOLF, not the Tiger show. Your general attitude here is exactly the problem, and the reason why so many are fed up with Tiger.

What are you smoking?? My statement in no way, shape or form assumes that Tiger is the only one playing....others have said that when he is playing it is LIKE he is the only one playing but I certainly don't make that assumption.

What I am guilty of assuming is that I don't have to spell out every minute detail when presenting an argument to you? Is it reasonable to assume that Tiger is the only person playing in a golf tournament? NO - although at times I know it can seem like that because he has been known to blow the field away by 15 strokes, but no Jon, I don't make that assumption.

As for the networks and their coverage, they cover what the people who pay the bills want them to cover and that's Tiger. Companies aren't paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to sponsor or advertise during a golf event which features Marco Dawson and Stephen Leaney dualing it out for 240th on the money list.

And God knows the viewing public isn't exactly biting at the bite to pay for commercial free coverage - but if it were, don't you think that Tiger would have to be part of any pay-per-view event before it would be even remotely feasible?

Why does the WWE have the heel? Because fans like having someone to go against.

Yeah, and Nike has invested a cool $100 Million in a heel Nice analogy there

For the record, never once have i mentioned millions of millions. You wanted hard facts so the only numbers I used were the 100% of my family members who cheer against Tiger.

Hold on, where did it go...........

I can tell you that 100% of golf viewers in my household cheer against Tiger.....But millions love to hate him.

Millions with an 'S' which implies multiple millions does it not?

[hoolio]

And there, folks, we have the crux of the issue, brilliantly and inadvertently summed up by Hacker.

This statement assumes that Tiger is the only one on the course. It is, of course, a telling assumption, as it is the same one that all the networks and all the commentators make. But, believe it or not there are actually people who tune in in hopes of watching the GOLF, not the Tiger show. Your general attitude here is exactly the problem, and the reason why so many are fed up with Tiger.

I think you're also making an assumption here. To assume that the networks, and commentators are oblivious to the fact that there are people out there who don't want to watch "The Tiger Show" is probably premature as well. There are probably a few dolts working at the networks (and there must be just judging by their programming), but I'm sure the research shows that the type of broadcast they put on is bringing in more viewers than it's scaring away, or they wouldn't be doing it.

I can't imagine that the commentators themselves are happy about fawning over Tiger for hours on end every week, but it's what the execs want, and it's what they're paid to do.

At the end of the day, if you take away the talent and good mental health, Tiger Woods isn't much different than Britney Spears. A lot of people want to scrutinize their every move, and it's going to be a media circus when they step on stage, whether they like it or not.

[Hacker]

I think you're also making an assumption here. To assume that the networks, and commentators are oblivious to the fact that there are people out there who don't want to watch "The Tiger Show" is probably premature as well. There are probably a few dolts working at the networks (and there must be just judging by their programming), but I'm sure the research shows that the type of broadcast they put on is bringing in more viewers than it's scaring away, or they wouldn't be doing it.

I can't imagine that the commentators themselves are happy about fawning over Tiger for hours on end every week, but it's what the execs want, and it's what they're paid to do.

At the end of the day, if you take away the talent and good mental health, Tiger Woods isn't much different than Britney Spears. A lot of people want to scrutinize their every move, and it's going to be a media circus when they step on stage, whether they like it or not.

OMG!! I just snorted coffee out of my nose!!!

[jonf]

Millions with an 'S' which implies multiple millions does it not?

Well....hmmm

That's still not millions AND millions though...so...ya...take that. For someone so concerned with substantiated facts, you sure are taking an artistic liberty with my statement So we're both wrong there.

What are you smoking?? My statement in no way, shape or form assumes that Tiger is the only one playing....others have said that when he is playing it is LIKE he is the only one playing but I certainly don't make that assumption.

I have to disagree with you there - while you may not make that assumption, your argument certainly does.

In response to my claim that you don't have to like a golfer to watch a golfer, you responded with:

"Well I guess I am only speaking for myself, but I would say that a significant percentage of the population would not watch a person, team, band, etc. that they dislike - can I quote an exact figure? NO, but then again you don't use any "facts" to back up your claims either so I guess we're good on that point. What I will say is that it is reasonable to assume that if someone dislikes someone or something they won't watch him/her/it."

Your assertion was that people would not watch if they disliked the player - that an individual who does not like Tiger will not watch. So yes, you are ignoring that there are other golfers in the field. You are ignoring the possibility that there are other golfers that people might tune in to watch. By assuming that a dislike for Tiger should prevent me from watching, you are ignoring the possibility that there are other golfers who might attract my viewership. Plenty of people tune in to see Weir or Els or Mickelson etc etc etc, despite disliking Tiger. You are assuming that if someone is watching, they must like Tiger, because nobody in their right mind would watch someone they don't like. My assertion is that there are many who do not like Tiger who watch in hopes of seeing the many other skilled golfers.

Yeah, and Nike has invested a cool $100 Million in a heel Nice analogy there

Ya...ignore the meat of my argument (about how sport wouldn't exist as it does if we only cheered for the winners) and jump on the only moderately controversial element of my statement.

Give me a break Hacker...you and I both know that I didn't call Tiger a heel. I pointed out the fact that people do enjoy cheering against people. In order to substantiate my claim, (as I couldn't find a relevant Decima poll to please your thirst for numbers), I pointed to a business that generates millions off the villain.

It's the same reason people packed stadiums to see Bonds in his final years - to jeer him. Sure, some came to watch the long ball, others came to chant "You took Steroids."

Fact - People love having a hero to cheer for

Fact - People love having a villain to cheer against

(and on that note, which so elegantly mirrors the statement that brought me into this debate, I hope to withdraw...though I will obviously have to return to fight injustice if the progress of the thread so demands)

[Hacker]

Well....hmmm

That's still not millions AND millions though...so...ya...take that. For someone so concerned with substantiated facts, you sure are taking an artistic liberty with my statement So we're both wrong there.

OK, so millions and millions could be at a minimum 4 million?? 2 groups of two million each.......I'm in the right ball park - how about I'm less wrong

I have to disagree with you there - while you may not make that assumption, your argument certainly does.

So I think that is a compliment - my arguments are now making their own assumptions I not sure, but I think that I've hit some higher zen-like level of arguing.

Your assertion was that people would not watch if they disliked the player - that an individual who does not like Tiger will not watch. So yes, you are ignoring that there are other golfers in the field. You are ignoring the possibility that there are other golfers that people might tune in to watch. By assuming that a dislike for Tiger should prevent me from watching, you are ignoring the possibility that there are other golfers who might attract my viewership. Plenty of people tune in to see Weir or Els or Mickelson etc etc etc, despite disliking Tiger. You are assuming that if someone is watching, they must like Tiger, because nobody in their right mind would watch someone they don't like. My assertion is that there are many who do not like Tiger who watch in hopes of seeing the many other skilled golfers.

Yet you talk earlier on about never getting to see any other players because Tiger get all of the coverage I'm confused.....but that is nothing new, just ask my wife - or if you wait for 5 minutes or so I'm sure Indio will also vouch for that fact

Ya...ignore the meat of my argument (about how sport wouldn't exist as it does if we only cheered for the winners) and jump on the only moderately controversial element of my statement.

I omitted it because you are in a round about way using a team sport analogy to explain an individual sport phenomenon...When the Bills play a game there is one winner and one loser not one winner and multiple losers like in golf. In fact, I've heard a number of pro golfers say that they don't play "against" the other players, they are playing the course itself

Give me a break Hacker...you and I both know that I didn't call Tiger a heel.

But you did....."drop in viewers when Tiger is gone. No great villain left to cheer against. Why does the WWE have the heel? Because fans like having someone to go against."

If you aren't calling him a heel then your agruement is

I hope to withdraw...though I will obviously have to return to fight injustice if the progress of the thread so demands)

I too shall withdraw, but only after you answer one question for me......Who is the the BEST GOLFER EVER?!?.....just kidding

[Slicer&Dicer]

Hacker:

I was talking golf not other sports. Golf has been a more humble sport in the past.

Els was in past years in Tiger's league and was travelling all over the world promoting golf, I never heard of appearance fees at that time. So since money makes the world go round, if they start paying Tiger $Millions to come to the Canadian Open, and they have to charge $200 per day or more, then that is ok?

Where is the love of the game anymore? in any sport?

No doubt when Tiger is in a tournament and playing near the top, there are much more viewers, many for and some against.

I wish Tiger no harm, no illness, no family issues. Apparently the golfer's say that behind the seenes he is a great guy, although what would expect them to say about their money train's conductor.

More than anything, I think most detractors of Tiger would love to see him tested like Yang tested him in the PGA and we all what happened there, he simply couldn't do his miracles when he needed them most. Yes, Yes I know it was once out of whatever times but hopefully there will be more of that to come.

Whether he wins or losses, if he is tested like with Bob May shot for shot, then I feel it is more enjoyable and a better testament to his abilities, then just having him walk away with it or have the others fall apart around him.

I just worry about Golf after Tiger, how long will the Fed Cup give away $10 million a year, where will the viewers go, what on earth will the commentators talk about, will they be making 10,000 yard courses, how will we all survive?

I know for me, I will be loving the game, one shot after another as I did long before Tiger and will do (if God willing), long after.

[fourlights]

Half of you would argue that the sky is blue, when it is clearly red. If you think that Tiger is the only one who slams his clubs or curses, then I can guarantee that you do not regularly watch golf on television. By the way, the sky is neither blue nor red. Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time. HA!

[sensfan63]

Hacker:

I was talking golf not other sports. Golf has been a more humble sport in the past.

Els was in past years in Tiger's league and was travelling all over the world promoting golf, I never heard of appearance fees at that time. So since money makes the world go round, if they start paying Tiger $Millions to come to the Canadian Open, and they have to charge $200 per day or more, then that is ok?
.

Sorry friend, but Els and Player have collected appearance fees to play in tournaments. Fact of life outside of the US in professional golf.

It didn't start with Tiger, and it won't end with him either.

[goochy]

I don't know if Woods is the greatest player in golf so far, and I genuinely don't really care.

At the risk of sounding aloof I find these kind of sports arguments pointless, BUT I do absolutely guarantee one thing....If Woods beats Nicklaus' Record in majors and Snead"s PGA Wins (as he most likely will) it will be a great achievement.

It will also, as sure as eggs, be beaten again in some future point by someone. Such is the nature of records. Golf will continue long after Tiger, as it did for at least 500 years before him.


[/QUOTE]
I just worry about Golf after Tiger, how long will the Fed Cup give away $10 million a year, where will the viewers go, what on earth will the commentators talk about, will they be making 10,000 yard courses, how will we all survive?

I know for me, I will be loving the game, one shot after another as I did long before Tiger and will do (if God willing), long after.[/QUOTE]

[BC MIST]

Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe Tiger is the greatest (friend) ever. It was reported on "GOLF CENTRAL" last evening that Mark O'Meara's two major wins are being credited to Tiger for the friendship he established with Mark prior to 1998. Similarly, if Steve Stricker wins a major next year, even more praise (just can't wait) will be heaped on Tiger as his an Steve's friendship is now solid. With BS like this you wonder why some of us are tired of Tiger?

[stevek]

While I don't dislike Tiger I do think he is over-covered. Which may make people resnt him. It also seems there is a 'Tiger' question in every interview with every player/commentator. However the Duel last year that Tiger had with Rocco was likely the best I've ever seen. I was at Golf Town shopping and along with everyone else in the store was glued to the Monitors. I still think the best golf shot of the year (besides two or three of mine discussed in a different thread) was Yang driving to the green to be the only golfer to come back and beat Tiger.

The effect of no Tiger this weekend is there's only 2 hours of coverage each day for the Frys.com tournament that Weir is favoured to win. If Tiger was playing the coverage would be the regular 3 hours; but of course, Weir wouldn't be favoured anymore.

This is the reality of Tiger - Higher Ratings - More Commercials - More Sponsor Money - More coverage. Love it or hate it, it just is.

[Hacker]

Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe Tiger is the greatest (friend) ever. It was reported on "GOLF CENTRAL" last evening that Mark O'Meara's two major wins are being credited to Tiger for the friendship he established with Mark prior to 1998. Similarly, if Steve Stricker wins a major next year, even more praise (just can't wait) will be heaped on Tiger as his an Steve's friendship is now solid. With BS like this you wonder why some of us are tired of Tiger?

WOW!!! The folks at TGC must REALLY be hard up for a story...I bet that Stephen King himself couldn't come up with such a tale...

[fourlights]

Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe Tiger is the greatest (friend) ever. It was reported on "GOLF CENTRAL" last evening that Mark O'Meara's two major wins are being credited to Tiger for the friendship he established with Mark prior to 1998. Similarly, if Steve Stricker wins a major next year, even more praise (just can't wait) will be heaped on Tiger as his an Steve's friendship is now solid. With BS like this you wonder why some of us are tired of Tiger?

With vitriol like this, I am beginning to think that some of you hate Tiger for no reason. Does Tiger control the media? No. He can't be blamed for being a constant topic of media attention, considering that he has 71 PGA tour victories. The rest of the top 10 in the world (date Oct. 21 2009), have 93 combined. He has won only two less majors than the current top 20 in the world...combined. He is a phenomenal player, and deserves respect for that. There is a group of individuals who will never be satisfied with anything that Tiger does, and that is a shame.

[Chambokl]

Sports Illustrated had Tiger 30 times on their cover. They know that people will buy the magazine when Tiger is on the cover because people love Tiger...

SI Cover:
Michael Jordan (56), Jack Nicklaus (24), Gretzky (17), Muhammad Ali (38), Magic (22)

1st NHL player on SI cover... Jean Béliveau (January 23, 1956)

[nokids]

Maybe this will put an end to all the "Tiger Bashing"! Lets face it ----he is one hell of a player. It's not his fault the commentators or the networks focus on him all the time---that's what brings them their money---he gets his by doing what he does---and he does it the best ----plus he gives over half of it away---I don't see the networks doing that

He WILL go down as the best golfer ever ----I just hope I stick around long enough to see it !

people, remember the good old days?

[nokids]

i couldn't care less what happens in his bedroom.