Tiger's Putt and giving the other one

vicwatson

brick tamland wrote: »

I think 14-14 v 14.5-13.5 makes very little difference in the grand scheme of thingS. Wouldnt habe made any difference to either team if Molinari missed. Good sportsmanship from tiger IMO

Wellll, it's in the History books now that Europe won it outright instead of just retaining the trophy. If I was on the American team my preference woulb be to have Europe retain it rather than win it outright.

For that reason I don't know why Tiger did what he did.

ridonkulous

vicwatson wrote: »

Wellll, it's in the History books now that Europe won it outright instead of just retaining the trophy. If I was on the American team my preference woulb be to have Europe retain it rather than win it outright.

For that reason I don't know why Tiger did what he did.

Because it was an act of pure class.

Dtoffee

Nicklaus gave a win for a draw, but knew he had retained the trophy.

Tiger gave away a draw for a loss and if I was his Captain and/or a team mate .... I would not be impressed. I dont think he even tried to make the par putt anyway. For me, he threw a hissy and just gave up without thinking about the consequences for his Captain and his team..... he just wanted out.

Davis Love, Stricker and Furyk will probably never have another chance and despite their failings, they did not deserve to have a possible halved match thrown away.

I was always thought if you can't win on the day, then avoiding defeat is your best option. As quoted elsewhere on this thread, Seve shook hands smiled and thought 'I'll bury you', I could not imagine him giving away a loss when it could have been a drawn game.

lettuce97

ridonkulous wrote: »

Because it was an act of pure class.

I have to agree. I intensely dislike Tiger, but was hugely impressed by his behaviour last night. I was actually thinking of Nicklaus and hoping Olazabal/Molinari would concede Tiger's put and take the draw overall

onlyfinewine

the lawman wrote: »

I think you're splitting hairs here to be honest. They are very similar incidents.

Both guys took a half rather than making the other guy putt. Only difference is Woods knew he was on the losing side while Jack knew he was on the winning side. Probably an easier thing for a winning player to do rather than a losing player IMO.

Nicklaus conceded a half on the hole to allow Europe to halve the matches and it was a short putt.

Tiger did not take a half on the 18th, he conceded a much longer putt to lose the hole and lose the overall matches allowing Europe to actually win the Ryder Cup.

So not the same thing really.

But to get back on track the thread is about "Tiger's putt and giving the other one" not Jack's concession.

alxmorgan

Dtoffee wrote: »

Nicklaus gave a win for a draw, but knew he had retained the trophy.

Tiger gave away a draw for a loss and if I was his Captain and/or a team mate .... I would not be impressed. I dont think he even tried to make the par putt anyway. For me, he threw a hissy and just gave up without thinking about the consequences for his Captain and his team..... he just wanted out.

Davis Love, Stricker and Furyk will probably never have another chance and despite their failings, they did not deserve to have a possible halved match thrown away.

I was always thought if you can't win on the day, then avoiding defeat is your best option. As quoted elsewhere on this thread, Seve shook hands smiled and thought 'I'll bury you', I could not imagine him giving away a loss when it could have been a drawn game.

Can't see either of them being annoyed at Tiger though
Be blaming themselves mainly and rightly so

Too much of a big thing being made of it.
Retain or win - feck all difference I think. All that's important is who walks off with the cup

slave1

Ironically this thread is about Tiger conceding that putt to allow Europe to win but as the number one ranked US player he lost his previous 3 matches so I would blame him squarely for the US loss on two counts, playing sh1te and conceding the putt, the former way way more than the latter.

When you think about it no-one putted to win the 2012 Ryder Cup which is a bit of a shame as Molari could have held that honour to his dying day!
Assuming he made it

PARlance

onlyfinewine wrote: »

I posted about this in a previous thread as a class act.

However Jacklins 2 or 3 foot putt was to halve the overall result whereas Molinari's 4 or 5 foot putt was to win the match overall.

Missing it would have still left the European's halving the matches and retaining the Ryder Cup, so not quite the same thing.

Molinari's putt was to win the hole not to win the match.
The putt was conceded and the match was halved.

vicwatson

ridonkulous wrote: »

Because it was an act of pure class.

It wasn't a question for you to answer :rolleyes:

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

Its pretty much the same as Nicklaus in Birkdale.

At the par-5 finishing hole, both Jacklin and Nicklaus got on the green in two. Nicklaus ran his eagle putt five feet past the hole, while Jacklin left his two foot short. Nicklaus then sank his birdie putt, and with a crowd of 8,000 people watching, picked up Jacklin's marker, conceding the putt Jacklin needed to tie the matches. With the United States team already holding the cup, the tie allowed it to retain the cup.[12][13] "I don't think you would have missed that putt," Nicklaus said to Jacklin afterwards, "but in these circumstances I would never give you the opportunity."

I guess we'll never know for sure but I really don't think Tiger would have conceded if he made the putt.

I don't think it's the same situation as above, Nicklaus made his putt that secured his teams victory. Tiger missed his and his team had just lost... There's a much greater chance that bitterness was involved in Tigers concession.

If Tiger wanted to be the Sportsman, then why didn't he concede on the fairway after Kaymers putt?

onlyfinewine

The following excerpt on the Ryder Cup gives a different slant on what I have thought previously and covers a few other points that were brought up.


The first tie in Ryder Cup history occurred in 1969. It was secured on the final hole of the final match, when Jack Nicklaus conceded a short putt to Tony Jacklin, halving the hole, halving their match, and halving the Cup. After picking up Jacklin’s marker, Nicklaus said, “I don’t think you would have missed it, but I wasn’t going to give you the chance, either.” Ever since, Nicklaus’s gesture has been celebrated as one of the greatest acts of sportsmanship in the history of competition.

On the other hand, it could be viewed as one of the greatest acts of gamesmanship. By giving Jacklin the putt, Nicklaus made the half look less like an accomplishment by the British (who had won the cup only once since 1933) than like a personal gift from Nicklaus. It also left forever hanging the possibility that the reigning British Open champion might have gagged over his eighteen-incher. That’s one of the cool things about match play.

Because the United States had won the previous Matches, in 1967, it “retained” the trophy in 1969. Television commentators and others often speak of “retention” as though it were a form of victory, but it’s not. The only possible outcomes in any match, or in the overall event, are win, lose, and draw. “Retention” is just a housekeeping issue: who will hold the hardware till next time if the two teams tie? Players don’t go to the Ryder Cup hoping to “retain.” They go hoping to win.

kiers47

ajcurry123 wrote: »

I guess we'll never know for sure but I really don't think Tiger would have conceded if he made the putt.

I don't think it's the same situation as above, Nicklaus made his putt that secured his teams victory. Tiger missed his and his team had just lost... There's a much greater chance that bitterness was involved in Tigers concession.

If Tiger wanted to be the Sportsman, then why didn't he concede on the fairway after Kaymers putt?

Tiger would have won the match if he made the putt.

InTheRough

From BBC Sports "Tiger Woods , 36, World ranking 2: "It was already over [when I conceded the last hole]. We came here as a team and the cup had already been retained by Europe. You come here as a team and you win or lose as a team. It's pointless to even finish. So 18 was just, 'Hey, get this over with'." Won 0 Lost 3 Tied 1. Points won 0.5."

Answers that question.

onlyfinewine

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyfinewine
I posted about this in a previous thread as a class act.

However Jacklins 2 or 3 foot putt was to halve the overall result whereas Molinari's 4 or 5 foot putt was to win the match overall.

Missing it would have still left the European's halving the matches and retaining the Ryder Cup, so not quite the same thing.

Molinari's putt was to win the hole not to win the match.
The putt was conceded and the match was halved.

Because the situation was 14 points all while Tiger and Molinari were coming up the 18th and Molinari was 1 down having lost the 17th, he needed to win the hole to halve his match and bring the winning points total to 14.5, so I think it is fair to say that his putt was to win the match overall?

PARlance

kiers47 wrote: »

Tiger would have won the match if he made the putt.

Where's the "I'm an idiot icon"
This one just isn't enough for this situation

Cheers Kiers

kiers47

ajcurry123 wrote: »

Where's the "I'm an idiot icon"
This one just isn't enough for this situation

Cheers Kiers

haha. No worries.



On this topic. It all seems a bit Overkill. I am a Tiger fan always have been. Just for the golf i couldn't care less about his off course antics or some of his on course antics for that matter. I love him for his never say die attitude.
He is great for the game when in form and that gesture last night was great for the game.
I think it should be left at that who cares what tiger meant or what people think he meant. It was an outstanding thing to do and it should in no way take from Europe's incredible performance.

Davin Stand

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Because the situation was 14 points all while Tiger and Molinari were coming up the 18th and Molinari was 1 down having lost the 17th, he needed to win the hole to halve his match and bring the winning points total to 14.5, so I think it is fair to say that his putt was to win the match overall?

It was not 14 all when Woods and Molinari were playing the last hole. Europe were leading by 14 to 13 and Tiger being 1 up needed a half on the last hole to make it 14 all. When he missed his par putt Molinari needed to hole his putt to win the hole and get a half in the match and bring Europe to 14 1/2. By conceding the putt, Tiger made their match a half and Europe won the Ryder Cup, but they would have retained anyway even if Molinari had missed what was pretty short putt anyway. It is correct to say that he could have given a half to Molinari on the 18th fairway as they waited for the celebrations in front of them to end.

PARlance

kiers47 wrote: »

haha. No worries.



On this topic. It all seems a bit Overkill. I am a Tiger fan always have been. Just for the golf i couldn't care less about his off course antics or some of his on course antics for that matter. I love him for his never say die attitude.
He is great for the game when in form and that gesture last night was great for the game.
I think it should be left at that who cares what tiger meant or what people think he meant. It was an outstanding thing to do and it should in no way take from Europe's incredible performance.

Never say die you say.... didn't he concede

I've said my bit any, all personal opinion/interpretation anyway.
Great win, and you're right, I shouldn't & won't be dwelling on it anymore

BoardsMember

onlyfinewine wrote: »

The first tie in Ryder Cup history occurred in 1969. It was secured on the final hole of the final match, when Jack Nicklaus conceded a short putt to Tony Jacklin, halving the hole, halving their match, and halving the Cup. After picking up Jacklin’s marker, Nicklaus said, “I don’t think you would have missed it, but I wasn’t going to give you the chance, either.” Ever since, Nicklaus’s gesture has been celebrated as one of the greatest acts of sportsmanship in the history of competition.

On the other hand, it could be viewed as one of the greatest acts of gamesmanship. By giving Jacklin the putt, Nicklaus made the half look less like an accomplishment by the British (who had won the cup only once since 1933) than like a personal gift from Nicklaus. It also left forever hanging the possibility that the reigning British Open champion might have gagged over his eighteen-incher. That’s one of the cool things about match play.

Because the United States had won the previous Matches, in 1967, it “retained” the trophy in 1969. Television commentators and others often speak of “retention” as though it were a form of victory, but it’s not. The only possible outcomes in any match, or in the overall event, are win, lose, and draw. “Retention” is just a housekeeping issue: who will hold the hardware till next time if the two teams tie? Players don’t go to the Ryder Cup hoping to “retain.” They go hoping to win.

Utter nonsense:

"Gamesmanship is the use of dubious (although not technically illegal) methods to win or gain a serious advantage in a game or sport"

So to describe it as gamesmanship is just inane. In my opinion it should not be described as anything but testament to the sportsmanship and fine character of Nicklaus.

As for the rest of the comment, regarding retaining v's winning...it isnt just the commentators & others that speak of retaining as being a form of victory. Try considering how different emotions would have been last night & today if the result had been 14-14. Would Europe be less delighted, would USA be less devastated? Of course not. The fact is that there is little difference between winning & retaining, particularly if retaining is achieved away from home. The whole point of this, and this is according to the players themselves, is bragging rights for two years for who has the Ryder Cup. Do you really think that the USA would retort - "well yeah, but like you only retained it, you didnt beat us.....".

onlyfinewine

Davin Stand wrote: »

It was not 14 all when Woods and Molinari were playing the last hole. Europe were leading by 14 to 13 and Tiger being 1 up needed a half on the last hole to make it 14 all. When he missed his par putt Molinari needed to hole his putt to win the hole and get a half in the match and bring Europe to 14 1/2. By conceding the putt, Tiger made their match a half and Europe won the Ryder Cup, but they would have retained anyway even if Molinari had missed what was pretty short putt anyway. It is correct to say that he could have given a half to Molinari on the 18th fairway as they waited for the celebrations in front of them to end.

Sorry, I misquoted the points as 14 each instead of 14 to 13, but the rest of the statement is true. Molinari needed to hole the putt to half his match and bring the match total points overall to 14.5 and the win.

slave1

Go on, stick up a poll for the craic

onlyfinewine

BoardsMember wrote: »

Utter nonsense:

"Gamesmanship is the use of dubious (although not technically illegal) methods to win or gain a serious advantage in a game or sport"

So to describe it as gamesmanship is just inane. In my opinion it should not be described as anything but testament to the sportsmanship and fine character of Nicklaus.

As for the rest of the comment, regarding retaining v's winning...it isnt just the commentators & others that speak of retaining as being a form of victory. Try considering how different emotions would have been last night & today if the result had been 14-14. Would Europe be less delighted, would USA be less devastated? Of course not. The fact is that there is little difference between winning & retaining, particularly if retaining is achieved away from home. The whole point of this, and this is according to the players themselves, is bragging rights for two years for who has the Ryder Cup. Do you really think that the USA would retort - "well yeah, but like you only retained it, you didnt beat us.....".

The following excerpt on the Ryder Cup gives a different slant on what I have thought previously and covers a few other points that were brought up.

You left out the fact that it was an excerpt from David Owen in your reply, and I suppose that in an Irish context he might have suggested that Jack was "pulling a stroke"? I agree that the word gamesmanship is not one I would have chosen to reflect the possible rationale behind the action.

In relation to the winning, losing or halving of a match I have to disagree. The holding of the cup versus the winning of the cup are two completely different things in my view. But we probably agree that Davis Love was the losing team captain. I wonder what he would have been called in the event of a halved match?

I imagine Olazabal would feel different to be a "Retaining Captain" rather than a "Winning Captain"and as for Sevy, need I comment.

RikkFlair

Celebrating the whole "halved match" thing is all relative. At 10-6 down there's no doubt the Europeans would have settled for 14 all, you only have to look at the celebrations when Kaymer holed out, those were the celebrations of a victory, even if it did only look like a halved match at the time with Tiger 1 up on the last.

But take the 1989 halved match, Europe lost the last 4 singles having been 14-10 up, that did put a bit of a dampener on the celebrations and it probably didn't feel like a "win"

GreeBo

Europe wouldn't have celebrated a retention any differently IMO. Only Statto cares about a win or retention in this scenario.

FixdePitchmark

Can't believe that this one is still going.

It seems a divisive issue. It is a slight flaw in the format that it can be halved - yet considered retained. I know that is it, that is the way it works.

But very few examples of a sport event like that ?

Never liked that aspect.

onlyfinewine

How gentlemanly Tiger Woods cost the bookies MILLIONS by graciously conceding final putt that handed Europe outright victory in amazing Ryder Cup comeback
Industry experts say late drama cost UK betting companies £10million
Unlikely European comeback cost Ladbrokes £650,000 and Coral £400,000
Two punters even bet £500,000 on Europe to win as odds fell last night
Woods missed simple three-foot par putt on 18th green which lost match
Bookmakers were hoping for draw because few punters had bet on that

Well the bookies had an interest in Molinari missing the putt for sure!

G1032

Dun laoire wrote: »

Certainly wasnt a gimme so not sure where you lads are going with sportsmanship. Woods is not a team player anyway

And Jacklins was a gimme against Nicklaus? Great sportsmanship shown by Tiger. People just love to hate him now and won't give him the benefit of the doubt. It would have done nobody any good, except those who backed the draw, to see Molinari miss that putt. Tiger didn't want to see that either and made a fantastic gesture in giving that putt. But there will be cynics everywhere who'll doubt him.

G1032

slave1 wrote: »

he lost his previous 3 matches so I would blame him squarely for the US loss on two counts, playing sh1te and conceding the putt, the former way way more than the latter

Ya sure. He played real sh!te in the Friday fourball alright. Them seven birdies were terrible. And his partner Stricker played so well over the 3 days.
Blaming the American loss squarely on Woods? Give me a break.

GreeBo

Dun laoire wrote: »

Certainly wasnt a gimme so not sure where you lads are going with sportsmanship.

It was given because of the scenario, not because the putt was a gimme.
Its sportsmanship because after failing to win the hole/match, Woods didnt want to see Molinari lose it.

I think you have missed the point tbh.

RikkFlair

onlyfinewine wrote: »

How gentlemanly Tiger Woods cost the bookies MILLIONS by graciously conceding final putt that handed Europe outright victory in amazing Ryder Cup comeback
Industry experts say late drama cost UK betting companies £10million
Unlikely European comeback cost Ladbrokes £650,000 and Coral £400,000
Two punters even bet £500,000 on Europe to win as odds fell last night
Woods missed simple three-foot par putt on 18th green which lost match
Bookmakers were hoping for draw because few punters had bet on that

Well the bookies had an interest in Molinari missing the putt for sure!

Tiger obviously saw that message Paddy Power had in the sky for him and exacted his revenge :pac:

Jaysoose

onlyfinewine wrote: »

How gentlemanly Tiger Woods cost the bookies MILLIONS by graciously conceding final putt that handed Europe outright victory in amazing Ryder Cup comeback
Industry experts say late drama cost UK betting companies £10million
Unlikely European comeback cost Ladbrokes £650,000 and Coral £400,000
Two punters even bet £500,000 on Europe to win as odds fell last night
Woods missed simple three-foot par putt on 18th green which lost match
Bookmakers were hoping for draw because few punters had bet on that

Well the bookies had an interest in Molinari missing the putt for sure!

Did you have the draw backed?

A load of nonsense has been spouted on this subject in here so far, it was a nice touch by woods and showed he has some class.

SnowDrifts

Jeez - Tiger is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He showed good sportsmanship giving that putt and people still knock him. Europe had already retained the cup and their celebrations when Kaymer holed his putt showed that was all that mattered.

BoardsMember

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Jeez - Tiger is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

and

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Europe had already retained the cup and their celebrations when Kaymer holed his putt showed that was all that mattered.

That pretty much sums it up.

Ben1977

Tiger was and is still a great player. What most people dislike about him is total disrespect for others. i.e. playing partners, crowds and the whole golf community. I looked at the conceding of the putt and thought it was total disrespect to Molinari. Tiger was so rapped up in himself, he was on his way off the green when he told him to pick it up and just about turned around to shake his hand.

Take a look at Phil, total opposite. If he is having a bad game he still has time to smile to the crowd. His reaction after Roses putt on 16 and 17 should be shown to all kids learning golf.

Tiger just wanted to get off the green and get out of there.

G1032

Ben1977 wrote: »

I looked at the conceding of the putt and thought it was total disrespect to Molinari. Tiger was so rapped up in himself, he was on his way off the green when he told him to pick it up and just about turned around to shake his hand.

What?? He missed his putt, picked up his ball and then turned to Molinari to concede the hole. You were watching a different Ryder Cup to me if you think he was on his way of the green and just about shook Molinaris hand. In fact now that I've finished typing this I realize your post was obviously a wind up. More fool me to fall for it.

M.T. Cranium

Interesting discussion, but from this side of the pond (although I'm neutral) would have to say that U.S. fans and probably most players on the team would not see much if any consolation in a tied outcome for retention as opposed to outright win as happened when Tiger did what he did. What surprised me a bit was when G-Mac conceded that putt on 17, I think it was. That was with a half point still up for grabs, I think?

The real turning point was Poulter's Saturday performance, that turned a rout into a match. It was about the best Ryder Cup I can recall watching for drama on the final day which is not what I would have predicted Saturday lunch time.

onlyfinewine

RikkFlair wrote: »

Tiger obviously saw that message Paddy Power had in the sky for him and exacted his revenge :pac:

Only heard about the skywriting message about Tiger and co last night.

If it is true it was very bad form to say the least and in extremely bad taste and not a firm to be involved with.

It was alleged to me that it was Paddy Power that was involved in the sky writing, but I find that hard to believe that they would do such a thing.

Can anybody confirm/deny who was responsible for this?

slave1

From the BBC website

Olazabal said of Woods: "He just let it go. There was no reason for them to keep on trying to win that point. They didn't have any chance to win the cup."

Albundy30

Ben1977 wrote: »

Tiger was and is still a great player. What most people dislike about him is total disrespect for others. i.e. playing partners, crowds and the whole golf community. I looked at the conceding of the putt and thought it was total disrespect to Molinari. Tiger was so rapped up in himself, he was on his way off the green when he told him to pick it up and just about turned around to shake his hand.

Take a look at Phil, total opposite. If he is having a bad game he still has time to smile to the crowd. His reaction after Roses putt on 16 and 17 should be shown to all kids learning golf.

Tiger just wanted to get off the green and get out of there.

It is well known that Phil is as fake as they come and alot of people on the tour dislike him...it is very easy to get wrapped up in his grin and waves.
I watch Tiger and will him to win cause he is that damn good. He has been pretty much the greatest player in the world due to the fact he gets in a zone and doesn't whore himself out to the fans and media the way alot of others do. Tiger plays good or bad based on his form and not if the crowd are cheering him on. Just look at some of the F1 drivers...like Hamilton who wont speak with media or fans when he is on the track.... some sportsmen/women need to be in a zone and block out the bull**** around them to preform their best and others actually thrive on the fans cheering for them.

And as for him just wanting to get off the green.... well i applaud him for that as it shows he wanted to let team Europe have the lime light and so he left as quickly as he could cause he knew it was not about him....unlike some others who hung around waving and talking and slapping hands with everyone to show that they are still smiling after their defeat (which is utterly fake as 99% of losers are pissed off cause they lost).

Thats my take on this

GreeBo

Albundy30 wrote: »

It is well known that Phil is as fake as they come and alot of people on the tour dislike him...it is very easy to get wrapped up in his grin and waves.
I watch Tiger and will him to win cause he is that damn good. He has been pretty much the greatest player in the world due to the fact he gets in a zone and doesn't whore himself out to the fans and media the way alot of others do. Tiger plays good or bad based on his form and not if the crowd are cheering him on. Just look at some of the F1 drivers...like Hamilton who wont speak with media or fans when he is on the track.... some sportsmen/women need to be in a zone and block out the bull**** around them to preform their best and others actually thrive on the fans cheering for them.

And as for him just wanting to get off the green.... well i applaud him for that as it shows he wanted to let team Europe have the lime light and so he left as quickly as he could cause he knew it was not about him....unlike some others who hung around waving and talking and slapping hands with everyone to show that they are still smiling after their defeat (which is utterly fake as 99% of losers are pissed off cause they lost).

Thats my take on this

Tiger was outside laughing and joking with the European team when they met MJ outside on their way to the closing ceremony.

As for Phil being disliked and well known as a fake....

Keano

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Only heard about the skywriting message about Tiger and co last night.

If it is true it was very bad form to say the least and in extremely bad taste and not a firm to be involved with.

It was alleged to me that it was Paddy Power that was involved in the sky writing, but I find that hard to believe that they would do such a thing.

Can anybody confirm/deny who was responsible for this?

It was Paddy Power.

donalg1

I think he did it out of sportsmanship and nothing else, it was a class act imo.

He has always struck me as someone who believes in the game and its traditions and values and has always tried maintain them, giving that putt just showed that.

Ben1977

He was class on Saturday as well in the fourballs when he went back to his ball in the trees after Stricker missed the birdie putt! Just left the european lads standing there waiting while the holy one tried to hole out from about 80 yards. Class

IanPoulter

Just caught Dustin Johnson on Sky Sports News giving out that Molinari was unsporting for not conceeding the match to Woods. I thought he said something about conceding on the fairway cos they already had the trophy !! or maybe he meant conceeding the 4 footer as they were about the same distance. I think if Dustin has nothing good to say he should shut up. Sounds like sour grapes.

Anyone hear what he said?

Aidric

Albundy30 wrote: »

It is well known that Phil is as fake as they come

Nah. That's rubbish.

staker

Ben1977 wrote: »

He was class on Saturday as well in the fourballs when he went back to his ball in the trees after Stricker missed the birdie putt! Just left the european lads standing there waiting while the holy one tried to hole out from about 80 yards. Class

Had forgotten about that. What was his thinking there? Had Stricker sank it he would've looked like he was leaving the fight to SS. Why would he not just play his shot in turn?

IanPoulter

From Skysports.com

Tiger Woods admitted the match was "already over" after he conceded the 18th hole to hand Europe an outright win at Medinah.

http://www1.skysports.com/rydercup/story/26733/8129283

tayto lover

Albundy30 wrote: »

It is well known that Phil is as fake as they come and alot of people on the tour dislike him...it is very easy to get wrapped up in his grin and waves.
I watch Tiger and will him to win cause he is that damn good. He has been pretty much the greatest player in the world due to the fact he gets in a zone and doesn't whore himself out to the fans and media the way alot of others do. Tiger plays good or bad based on his form and not if the crowd are cheering him on. Just look at some of the F1 drivers...like Hamilton who wont speak with media or fans when he is on the track.... some sportsmen/women need to be in a zone and block out the bull**** around them to preform their best and others actually thrive on the fans cheering for them.

And as for him just wanting to get off the green.... well i applaud him for that as it shows he wanted to let team Europe have the lime light and so he left as quickly as he could cause he knew it was not about him....unlike some others who hung around waving and talking and slapping hands with everyone to show that they are still smiling after their defeat (which is utterly fake as 99% of losers are pissed off cause they lost).

Thats my take on this

FFS Phil Mickleson was the complete gentleman in the way he applauded Rose's putt on the 17th. That's sportsmanship and golf more than any other sport has loads of lads like that. I have never heard a bad word against him in my life.

RikkFlair

IanPoulter wrote: »

Just caught Dustin Johnson on Sky Sports News giving out that Molinari was unsporting for not conceeding the match to Woods. I thought he said something about conceding on the fairway cos they already had the trophy !! or maybe he meant conceeding the 4 footer as they were about the same distance. I think if Dustin has nothing good to say he should shut up. Sounds like sour grapes.

Anyone hear what he said?

Yeah he said Molinari should've just conceded in the fairway for a half match. Olazabal came down and told him to play on and try and win the hole, so Dustin should just keep his opinion to himself tbh.

L.O.F.T

Albundy30 wrote: »

unlike some others who hung around waving and talking and slapping hands with everyone to show that they are still smiling after their defeat (which is utterly fake as 99% of losers are pissed off cause they lost)