The Tiger Woods Thread

CalamariFritti

First Up wrote: »

... I don't think that is good for the game.

I get how you feel about it. But I dare say most people wouldn't even notice. I can't see how it could have any influence on the game itself.

And in any case Tiger hardly calls up to CBS himself and says hey look lads if I'm being tied mid round I better be on top of the ties on screen. It's hardly his fault, how could you possibly hold that against him?

Plus like I said I noticed it once or twice over the year but not in anything serious from a proper tv network.

First Up

CalamariFritti wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

... I don't think that is good for the game.

I get how you feel about it. But I dare say most people wouldn't even notice. I can't see how it could have any influence on the game itself.

And in any case Tiger hardly calls up to CBS himself and says hey look lads if I'm being tied mid round I better be on top of the ties on screen. It's hardly his fault, how could you possibly hold that against him?

Plus like I said I noticed it once or twice over the year but not in anything serious from a proper tv network.

I think you will notice it on every US broadcast. No, of course Tiger isn't calling them up but he and everyone else understands the connection between viewer numbers, advertising revenue and cash in pocket. This nonsense affects the market where it hurts.

The "average" golf fan may not pay much attention but the average Tiger fan is only looking for one name on the leaderboard. Thats the point.

CalamariFritti

First Up wrote: »

I think you will notice it on every US broadcast. No, of course Tiger isn't calling them up but he and everyone else understands the connection between viewer numbers, advertising revenue and cash in pocket. This nonsense affects the market where it hurts.

The "average" golf fan may not pay much attention but the average Tiger fan is only looking for one name on the leaderboard. Thats the point.

But thats what the average fan does. The average Manchester United fan isn't looking where Burnley is either. I'm not sure I'm following.

Anyway, now that it has become an issue of debate I will have a look next week if the leaderboard gives Tiger preference when he's tied. I definitely didn't notice it at The Open or the PGA. I remember because at some point there were so many on -9 they didn't all fit on the first page and I thought Tiger had made bogey but he hadn't. He was at -9 on page 2.

charlieIRL

To add to this, imho, pointless debate. Three players tied at -11 and the Wyndham and they are shown in alphabetical order.

I always thought it was whoever was furthest into round or finished round was on top.

First Up

CalamariFritti wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I think you will notice it on every US broadcast. No, of course Tiger isn't calling them up but he and everyone else understands the connection between viewer numbers, advertising revenue and cash in pocket. This nonsense affects the market where it hurts.

The "average" golf fan may not pay much attention but the average Tiger fan is only looking for one name on the leaderboard. Thats the point.

But thats what the average fan does. The average Manchester United fan isn't looking where Burnley is either. I'm not sure I'm following.

Anyway, now that it has become an issue of debate I will have a look next week if the leaderboard gives Tiger preference when he's tied. I definitely didn't notice it at The Open or the PGA. I remember because at some point there were so many on -9 they didn't all fit on the first page and I thought Tiger had made bogey but he hadn't. He was at -9 on page 2.

Well lets all watch and draw our conclusions.

The average Man U fan is aware of what else is going on in the league and in the sport. I don't think that's the case with some of those that Tiger draws.

CalamariFritti

charlieIRL wrote: »

To add to this, imho, pointless debate. Three players tied at -11 and the Wyndham and they are shown in alphabetical order.

I always thought it was whoever was furthest into round or finished round was on top.

It is totally pointless. It has no effect on anything. You will only notice this even if Tiger really winds you up the wrong way to begin with. That was my earlier point.

There are some golfers I'm not overly fond of. I never really notice anything about them.

Anyway here is actually something that may be of value to debate (marginally).
So if a number of guys are tied mid round. Who should be on top from a logical point of view? The guys who are farther into their round as in they have fewer holes left to screw up? Or they guys who have more holes left to play as in they have more opportunities to go lower?

First Up

CalamariFritti wrote: »

It is totally pointless. It has no effect on anything. You will only notice this even if Tiger really winds you up the wrong way to begin with. That was my earlier point.

There are some golfers I'm not overly fond of. I never really notice anything about them.

If it has no affect on anything, why do you think the TV companies break a long standing practice to do it?

Tiger is a great player and a great competitor. Unfortunately he has also attracted a type of fan that has poisoned the atmosphere at tournaments and made life harder for others. The actions of the TV companies are pandering to exactly these nobheads.

CalamariFritti

Those knobheads are a rural vs city thing I think. The crowd in Mississippi was rather well behaved. We will notice in Boston they will be a lot more boisterous and probably a good bit more tanked up too.

First Up

CalamariFritti wrote: »

charlieIRL wrote: »

To add to this, imho, pointless debate. Three players tied at -11 and the Wyndham and they are shown in alphabetical order.

I always thought it was whoever was furthest into round or finished round was on top.

It is totally pointless. It has no effect on anything. You will only notice this even if Tiger really winds you up the wrong way to begin with. That was my earlier point.

There are some golfers I'm not overly fond of. I never really notice anything about them.

Anyway here is actually something that may be of value to debate (marginally).
So if a number of guys are tied mid round. Who should be on top from a logical point of view? The guys who are farther into their round as in they have fewer holes left to screw up? Or they guys who have more holes left to play as in they have more opportunities to go lower?

A reasonable question to ask but it wouldn't it be best if the same answer applied to everyone?

First Up

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Those knobheads are a rural vs city thing I think. The crowd in Mississippi was rather well behaved. We will notice in Boston they will be a lot more boisterous and probably a good bit more tanked up too.

Thats an unfortunate feature of tournament golf in the US. I marshalled at a tournament in New York for three years and some of the stuff going on was appalling.

I was also at Brookline for the Ryder Cup and some of that will forever be to the shame of the US golf community.

CalamariFritti

First Up wrote: »

A reasonable question to ask but it wouldn't it be best if the same answer applied to everyone?

Yes I agree. I'm a Tiger fan but I don't think he should get any advantages.

But this is not an advantage. Thats just pandering to the audience and while (if true) it may look a bit cringy and I'd rather not have it, I also dont see a big issue with it. Big teams and big players who a lot of people are following get more attention thats just how it is and why would it not be?

First Up

CalamariFritti wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

A reasonable question to ask but it wouldn't it be best if the same answer applied to everyone?

Yes I agree. I'm a Tiger fan but I don't think he should get any advantages.

But this is not an advantage. Thats just pandering to the audience and while (if true) it may look a bit cringy and I'd rather not have it, I also dont see a big issue with it. Big teams and big players who a lot of people are following get more attention thats just how it is and why would it not be?

He can (and does) get plenty of attention without that nonsense.

As I said, at a minimum it is disrespectful to the rest of the field and against the spirit of the game. Some people may not care about that but I do.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

But it wasn't from a US TV station.

Everytime I prove you wrong you move the goalposts, its getting kinda ridiculous.

First it was Tiger is always listed first - I posted several images disproving this
Then it went to usually posted first - we have yet to see any proof of this
Then it was US stations did it - I posted a CBS image
Then it was mid-round - I posted a mid round image

So what you are saying is that "Sometimes, possibly on some US stations, Tiger is listed above other players, but only mid-round when they have the same score"

Your point has kinda losts its, well it's point tbh.

PokeHerKing

GreeBo wrote:

Your point has kinda losts its, well it's point tbh.

His point would appear to be Tiger is bad for golf..

HighLine

Roll on Thursday.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

But it wasn't from a US TV station.

Everytime I prove you wrong you move the goalposts, its getting kinda ridiculous.

First it was Tiger is always listed first - I posted several images disproving this
Then it went to usually posted first - we have yet to see any proof of this
Then it was US stations did it - I posted a CBS image
Then it was mid-round - I posted a mid round image

So what you are saying is that "Sometimes, possibly on some US stations, Tiger is listed above other players, but only mid-round when they have the same score"

Your point has kinda losts its, well it's point tbh.

I am curious as to why you are scrambling for loopholes instead of addressing the reality of the situation.

I have been clear in talking about US media and I have several times specifically said mid round leaderboards.

But rather than split hairs, lets just wait and watch. I'll be interested to hear from you when you can no longer use denial as an argument.

CalamariFritti

Good morning (erm).

Lets assume all you said will happen does happen. Which is not a lot to begin with. Most of us find it even weird to debate this most marginal aspect of his presence in the game.
All we know then is that some networks like Tiger or like the audience/revenue that comes with Tiger and they pander to that. We know all that already.

What point will you have proven? That he attracts an un-gentlemanlike audience that is not with the spirit of the game? Does that outweigh all the positive impacts on golf he had and has? Are you saying you'd rather see him gone?

First Up

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Are you saying you'd rather see him gone?

No, I'd rather see him treated no differently to anyone else in the tournament.

PokeHerKing

First Up wrote:

No, I'd rather see him treated no differently to anyone else in the tournament.

He is different to everyone else though. You'll just have to accept that and you know, get over it.

First Up

PokeHerKing wrote: »

First Up wrote:

No, I'd rather see him treated no differently to anyone else in the tournament.

He is different to everyone else though. You'll just have to accept that and you know, get over it.

Thank you for encapsulating the problem in two short sentences.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

No, I'd rather see him treated no differently to anyone else in the tournament.

All of which has nothing to do with him, yet you seem to hold it against him.
It's bizarre.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

All of which has nothing to do with him, yet you seem to hold it against him.
It's bizarre.

Nothing? Please.

slave1

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

Nothing? Please.

So it's Tiger's fault that your magical television puts his name first sometimes, maybe, if its mid tournament and an American channel?

If only...ONLY there was some way you could watch golf on non American channels!

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Nothing? Please.

So it's Tiger's fault that your magical television puts his name first sometimes, maybe, if its mid tournament and an American channel?

If only...ONLY there was some way you could watch golf on non American channels!

If only it wasn't necessary to expect everyone in the field to be treated in the same way.

ridonkulous

First Up wrote: »

If only it wasn't necessary to expect everyone in the field to be treated in the same way.

But the field isn't treated the same behind the scenes either... The top players are given preferential treatment in every aspect of tour life from courtesy cars to access to the tour vans, physios etc to whatever you can think of. It's just a fact of life. Tiger has single handedly made life on tour a lot cushier for all involved so giving him crap for things that aren't under his control seems bizarre to me. I'm sure you'll dismiss this as a Tiger fanboy post but you couldn't be more wrong.

First Up

ridonkulous wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

If only it wasn't necessary to expect everyone in the field to be treated in the same way.

But the field isn't treated the same behind the scenes either... The top players are given preferential treatment in every aspect of tour life from courtesy cars to access to the tour vans, physios etc to whatever you can think of. It's just a fact of life. Tiger has single handedly made life on tour a lot cushier for all involved so giving him crap for things that aren't under his control seems bizarre to me. I'm sure you'll dismiss this as a Tiger fanboy post but you couldn't be more wrong.

Courtesy cars and physios were around before Tiger came along. He has certainly brought more money into the tour but don't exaggerate.

I have no problem with things being cushier for ALL involved; I have drawn attention to a pretty farcical practice that is applied to him ALONE.

Yes, we all know why they do it but I don't think it is healthy that broadcasters so blatantly and shamelessly favour one player for purely commercial reasons.

ridonkulous

First Up wrote: »

Courtesy cars and physios were around before Tiger came along. He has certainly brought more money into the tour but don't exaggerate.

I have no problem with things being cushier for ALL involved; I have drawn attention to a pretty farcical practice that is applied to him ALONE.

Yes, we all know why they do it but I don't think it is healthy that broadcasters so blatantly and shamelessly favour one player for purely commercial reasons.

I think you've read what you wanted in my last post and misread it but I'll leave that be.

What about tee times and pairings then? Those two are blatantly and shamelessly in favour of a group of players due to broadcasters and TV. It's a fact of life, what's the big deal???

First Up

ridonkulous wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Courtesy cars and physios were around before Tiger came along. He has certainly brought more money into the tour but don't exaggerate.

I have no problem with things being cushier for ALL involved; I have drawn attention to a pretty farcical practice that is applied to him ALONE.

Yes, we all know why they do it but I don't think it is healthy that broadcasters so blatantly and shamelessly favour one player for purely commercial reasons.

I think you've read what you wanted in my last post and misread it but I'll leave that be.

What about tee times and pairings then? Those two are blatantly and shamelessly in favour of a group of players due to broadcasters and TV. It's a fact of life, what's the big deal???

You are more than welcome to correct anything I have misread or mis-represented.

Yes, all tours put groups together for TV and gallery convenience and tour newbies get a lot of early and late starts. That's all part of working your way through the meritocracy, as in every profession. I have no problem with giving Tiger a Friday tee time that coincides with peak viewing. Hey, its show business.

I am talking about a specific and unique dispensation that puts Tiger further up the leaderboard than he should be because there is a category of viewer that only watches if he is in the hunt. I think that crosses the line between competition and commercial considerations.

Yes, I know he doesn't gain from it. My problem is how it helps nurture a culture of exceptionalism that is not healthy for the game.

gilmore

Give it up will you