Even though he was two shots down at one point, it didn't seem Woods really even had to grind too much. I think everyone, including Tiger himself, expected the inexperienced (PGA Tour-wise) players at the top of the leaderboard to eventually crack, and it happened. These guys are playing their best all tournament, Tiger goes along almost ho-humming his way around the course, and he takes another championship. And forget about Tiger-proofing any course. All that does is tour-proof it for the rest of the field. Woods pulls out his 5-iron to reach par fives after hitting a fairway wood 280 off the tee. The rest of the tour is playing him. He's playing against himself. The only thing having a child will do to Tiger's game is give him one more person to hug after he taps in for another win. Most sports would get boring having some person or team so dominating, but golf prospers.
You knew there was going to be the one hole where everything changed. You see it a lot with Tiger especially, and it's electrifying. The two kids in the lead group were on 12, and they both double-bogey, while at exactly the same moment, one hole behind, Tiger birdies the par-five (and almost eagles it, improbably), and he goes from two strokes back in 3rd to leading the whole thing, over the space of about three minutes. And at that moment, you knew it was over. It was like watching Hulk Hogan get up off the mat with his little Hulkamaniacs chanting his name (back when there still were little Hulkamaniancs, anyway). It was no less entertaining for being so predictable. In fact, even though he's done exactly this same finishing coup de grace literally dozens of times before, it never fails to awe me a little. Make no mistake, he had to work for this victory (Charles Howell III was playing like a maniac, and would have won it going away himself if not for whassisface), and he wasn't playing his best golf, but nowadays he's developed the experience to go with the skills, and no one, but no one, has the killer instinct and ability to close that Tiger Woods has. He's the Ricky Roma of golf. Except nicer. I watched the coverage all day yesterday waiting for that moment, and when it came, it just filled me with joy. (It was a good weekend all around for fans of that closing moment, actually.)
Food for thought. I love Tiger as a person, he is a phenom to say the least. But, is he good for golf? I have heard many comments on the course that they loose interest in watching golf because the results are a foregone conclusion. They have more interest in watching when Tiger isn't playing. I personally enjoy watching Tiger sometimes, and other times it gets boring watching the same guy win over and over. It is not unlike when Jack was so dominating and so many people hated him for beating their favorite players like Arnie, Lee and Gary. Also, when it comes to stating who is the best golfer ever, how do you really compare Tiger against Jack or Arnie. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Different generations of equipment, courses, etc. make it almost impossible to compare them. I realize that Tiger is one of the greatest golfers I have ever watched. He can hit shots no one else would even attempt. But I am just saying... Open for discussion.
Food for thought. I love Tiger as a person, he is a phenom to say the least. But, is he good for golf? I have heard many comments on the course that they loose interest in watching golf because the results are a foregone conclusion. They have more interest in watching when Tiger isn't playing. The TV ratings in the US are better when Tiger Woods is in contention than when he isn't.
Accepted, but the key there is the word "contention". When there is an actual battle for the win, people are interested. But when Tiger is running away from the field......
It's one of the strangest things in sports, actually, seeing how many people want Tiger to win, even though he's absolutely dominating the sport. You listen to the roar every time he does something big and it just confirms this. I guess people just want to follow, witness, and be part of history. Maybe it's just golf (unless you're talking about Colin Montgomerie). Part of it probably is that he seems to be a generally nice guy (and yes, I do accept the fact that if I was to see him someplace he'd blow past me like I didn't exist. I'm OK with that).
Accepted, but the key there is the word "contention". When there is an actual battle for the win, people are interested. But when Tiger is running away from the field...... I couldn't even begin to post all the articles that mention the improved ratings with Tiger. Here's something after Tiger Woods won the PGA Championship by five strokes: Said CBS Sports President Sean McManus after Woods' win: "It would probably be better if somebody had stepped up to challenge him. But even in a walkover, he's better (for ratings) than any other scenario that doesn't include him."
I guess people just want to follow, witness, and be part of history. That's sure as hell why I watch.
I guess people just want to follow, witness, and be part of history. During Tiger Woods historic win at the U.S. Open in 2000 (during his shot on the 18th), the local station interrupted to warn us about water spouts over the Bay. It was so ridiculous and outrageous. I tried to call them and so did everyone else. They replayed it later that night, but it wasn't the same. All the other stations reported the blunder and it even made the national news. Obviously, someone at the station wasn't paying attention to history being made.
I guess people just want to follow, witness, and be part of history. I gotta' say that, after reading Scoop Jackson's article on following Tiger's round last year (...which I'm too lazy to find back), I've been wanting to see him play in person very much because I want to be able to tell my grandkids that I saw him play live in his prime. On Preview: what chicobangs said for short.... oh and... apples to oranges. Different generations of equipment, courses, etc.... almost impossible to compare them. ...Maybe courses but I don't think different/better equipment makes that much of a difference. If it did, all those rich doctors I used to caddy for would have been out on tour winning tournments.
I'm definitely in the category of, "Bored with golf unless Tiger's involved." (Unlike my father, who would probably watch the Paraplegic Teenage Girls' Tour is such a thing existed.) I am awed by anyone who is so much better at something than anyone else and isn't totally arrogant or cocky. I'm getting back into men's tennis a little bit for the same reason (Federer). I'm sure I'm not the only one who is this way, as evidenced by TV ratings and what-not. From that standpoint, I'd have to say that yes, Tiger is good for golf.
I don't know alot about steroids and their effect but could they possibly help someone on the golf course? posted by jknemo at 8:28 PM CST on January 28 Golf is a game of precision and focus. If a player has those qualities to the same level that Tiger does and is roided up, then that player will consistently beat Tiger.
If a player has those qualities to the same level that Tiger does and is roided up, then that player will consistently beat Tiger. Why is that? If both players reach the green and location in the same number of shots, what difference does it make if the player gets there by outhitting Tiger by 30 yards on the drive? It just means he has to make a shorter shot on the second one (the "anti-steroids" shot), while Tiger (with his precision) drops it on the green with his normal ability. When they both reach the green, then steroids no longer is important as there won't be any time on a green where Tiger couldn't putt the ball from one end to the other. The only time it would ever make a difference is if they were to play on some Nintendo-esque course where it's an island green situated 380 yards away in the middle of a lake and Tiger simply couldn't hit the ball without a splash down. Now, if you really believe that courses will eventually evolve into something like that, I suppose that Roid-Tiger could beat Regular-Tiger.
Tiger Woods could possibly be the best golfer of all time,if he isn't already.I know the clubs are better and the balls probably travel farther than the old ones did,but Tiger Woods is the best out there right now.Like I said above,probably the best of all time.I don't golf,but just watching some of the shots he makes is sometimes unbelievable.Just my opinion.
Now, if you really believe that courses will eventually evolve into something like that, I suppose that Roid-Tiger could beat Regular-Tiger. Roid Tiger wouldn't even need any clubs; he would surely be able to drive the ball 800 yards with his bare hand. I imagine that would chap the behinds of the club manufacturers.....might make a good segment on MythBusters.......I say its "plausible". :)
The only improvement roids could make for a golfer would involve bulking up (which in itself is only of limited use - Faldo did it one winter late in his career and lost a season and a half because his felxibility went to hell) and/or recovering quickly from injury. If you were going to drug cheat at golf, you'd be better served by beta blockers or anything else you could get to keep you calm at the crucial moments. "roid-Tiger" is a scary thought.
One other possible advantage is that EPO improves your eyesight. It's worth noting that the PGA Tour currently carries out no drug testing, but Tiger Woods himself has said they ought to. The LPGA is introducing testing from next year.
