The Tiger Woods Thread

valoren

The parallel with Hogan's comeback is interesting. Those who detract from Woods' victory are quick to point out what Hogan endured and it was a lot to be fair. However, bones can heal, we can physically recover and win again as Hogan miraculously did albeit on a very limited schedule. It's said that Golf is more mental than physical and to even try and gauge what Wood's has been through mentally and emotionally since late 2009 is the kernel of this comeback victory. It was a physical comeback on one hand but also a mental and emotional one.

To have his reputation, his character and his name understandably sullied, through his own fault let's be fair, is not a pleasant experience for anyone. In the age of social media, that vitriol is inescapable. Little solace beyond material comfort can be had from living alone in a huge house with millions upon millions of dollars in the bank. Reputation is everything. He lost it and whatever we might think of him as a man, we simply can't deny that he is a brilliant, brilliant golfer.

CalamariFritti

Here is a fella who has what are basically unrecoverable back injuries. He has several orthodox procedures done with no success. He can barely walk, stand or even sit and is so bad he develops addiction to his pain killers. He is as done as anyone ever will be.
He gets experimental surgery done. Experimental anyway in terms of getting it done and playing a sport to any kind of level again. He still can not be sure how successful this will be in the long run.
He is 41 and has a gazillion dollar in the bank. He doesnt need to do anything again ever. And he gets this procedure done. And all he can think of is clawing his way back. From a point of ridicule (duffs chips etc) in a nearly 2 year long process to a point where he wins the tour championship. Nearly wins the season/Fedex only for a couple of dozen points. Came down to a single shot/putt by Rose. Starting in only in half the counting events. And he did that with all those great players around that supposedly weren't around when he dominated.

If we were ever wondering what makes Tiger Woods Tiger Woods. There is your answer.

First Up

CalamariFritti wrote:

If we were ever wondering what makes Tiger Woods Tiger Woods. There is your answer.

No argument about any of that. His setbacks would have driven most people into retirement. I detest his obnoxious fans but nobody could begrudge him the win yesterday. We'll see how much longer he can play at the top level but as comebacks go, its right up there and he is still a formidable competitor.

It was a sobering experience for McIroy especially. He had a golden opportunity to shine on a big stage and ended up with his head under his arm.

backspin.

Tiger is going to won all 4 majors in 2019...

Henryhill2

backspin. wrote: »

Tiger is going to won all 4 majors in 2019...

Can't see it

He's back but hes physically older too

You could see it at the weekend

Henryhill2

In fairness

Whoever thought he'd have a chance to equal 18
the way he was

someyoke

valoren wrote: »

The parallel with Hogan's comeback is interesting. Those who detract from Woods' victory are quick to point out what Hogan endured and it was a lot to be fair. However, bones can heal, we can physically recover and win again as Hogan miraculously did albeit on a very limited schedule. It's said that Golf is more mental than physical and to even try and gauge what Wood's has been through mentally and emotionally since late 2009 is the kernel of this comeback victory. It was a physical comeback on one hand but also a mental and emotional one.

To have his reputation, his character and his name understandably sullied, through his own fault let's be fair, is not a pleasant experience for anyone. In the age of social media, that vitriol is inescapable. Little solace beyond material comfort can be had from living alone in a huge house with millions upon millions of dollars in the bank. Reputation is everything. He lost it and whatever we might think of him as a man, we simply can't deny that he is a brilliant, brilliant golfer.

Started reading the thread from this post and for a period honestly thought you were referring to hulk hogan!


Don't know if this was posted before- incredible anecdotes, written a couple of years back.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/15278522/how-tiger-woods-life-unraveled-years-father-earl-woods-death

Niles Crane

I think this is his 15th win since his last major win.I think most people thought once they saw his gradual improvement this year that he would win an event again the big question is can he win a major again.

It's great for him to win it but in some ways I think the reaction has been a little over the top. He won what is a PGA tour event with a weakened field as only the top 30 were in the field as opposed to having the top 70 or 80 in the field which would be the case in a Major,WGC or Players Championship.

Deeper Blue

https://twitter.com/PGATOUR/status/1043991708000833542

Class

RoadRunner

He'll be running a pro shop in 5 years

jj72

Niles Crane wrote: »

I think this is his 15th win since his last major win.I think most people thought once they saw his gradual improvement this year that he would win an event again the big question is can he win a major again.

It's great for him to win it but in some ways I think the reaction has been a little over the top. He won what is a PGA tour event with a weakened field as only the top 30 were in the field as opposed to having the top 70 or 80 in the field which would be the case in a Major,WGC or Players Championship.

The Tour championship is the furthest thing you can get from a weakened field. It is the top thirty in the points list, it takes a year of decent form followed by four weeks of playoffs to qualify. Everyone who qualifies has had to show some form in the build up. One of the strongest fields of the year on the tour imo. Majors / WGCs hav a field largely based on world rankings over a 2 year period so players form is not accounted for

First Up

jj72 wrote:

The Tour championship is the furthest thing you can get from a weakened field. It is the top thirty in the points list, it takes a year of decent form followed by four weeks of playoffs to qualify. Everyone who qualifies has had to show some form in the build up. One of the strongest fields of the year on the tour imo. Majors / WGCs hav a field largely based on world rankings over a 2 year period so players form is not accounted for

That's true but the smaller the field, the less players you have to beat and the greater the impact of some having a bad day (as some did.)

That said, Tiger's performance in even getting into the field from where he started and then nearly winning the whole thing was extraordinary and a testament to both his talent and determination.

We'll see where he goes from here but there's a few players we could name who should be using the off-season to take a long look at themselves.

Niles Crane

jj72 wrote: »

The Tour championship is the furthest thing you can get from a weakened field. It is the top thirty in the points list, it takes a year of decent form followed by four weeks of playoffs to qualify. Everyone who qualifies has had to show some form in the build up. One of the strongest fields of the year on the tour imo. Majors / WGCs hav a field largely based on world rankings over a 2 year period so players form is not accounted for

The smaller the field the more chance each player has of winning because there are less people in the tournament.With golf being the way it is as a sport and the general level of unpredictability to it the small field of 30 improves each players chances of winning.

Also there is very little difference in level between players from about 15-20 in the world to 50-60 in the world so you're exluding a huge amount of players from this tournament who are no worse than half of the field last weekend.

Tilikum17

Niles Crane wrote: »

I think this is his 15th win since his last major win.I think most people thought once they saw his gradual improvement this year that he would win an event again the big question is can he win a major again.

It's great for him to win it but in some ways I think the reaction has been a little over the top. He won what is a PGA tour event with a weakened field as only the top 30 were in the field as opposed to having the top 70 or 80 in the field which would be the case in a Major,WGC or Players Championship.

Good lord above.

jj72

Niles Crane wrote: »

The smaller the field the more chance each player has of winning because there are less people in the tournament.With golf being the way it is as a sport and the general level of unpredictability to it the small field of 30 improves each players chances of winning.

Also there is very little difference in level between players from about 15-20 in the world to 50-60 in the world so you're exluding a huge amount of players from this tournament who are no worse than half of the field last weekend.

I think you are missing the point, By not Having another 20 - 30 players in the field who are not on form, it makes it an even stronger line up. Golf is pretty much a form game, just look at the top ten at the BMW, 7 of them finished Top 10 again this week. Here you have the top 30 form players in the world as opposed to having another 20/30 lads who showed great form early in the season and have qualified for the first couple of playoff events on the back of that

Russman

Niles Crane wrote: »

It's great for him to win it but in some ways I think the reaction has been a little over the top. He won what is a PGA tour event with a weakened field as only the top 30 were in the field as opposed to having the top 70 or 80 in the field which would be the case in a Major,WGC or Players Championship.

Totally agree that the reaction has been a bit over the top, but hey, it is what it is.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a weakened field per se, but no doubt its easier to beat 29 guys than 155 guys, especially nowadays when there is so much strength in depth on tour, i.e. basically anyone who tees it up can win in a given week. You don't often see anyone going out with the lead on Sunday, shooting over par and still winning, if its a full field event of a decent status.

jj72

Russman wrote: »

Totally agree that the reaction has been a bit over the top, but hey, it is what it is.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a weakened field per se, but no doubt its easier to beat 29 guys than 155 guys, especially nowadays when there is so much strength in depth on tour, i.e. basically anyone who tees it up can win in a given week. You don't often see anyone going out with the lead on Sunday, shooting over par and still winning, if its a full field event of a decent status.

NO you don't but to be fair you don't often have to play 3 play off events just to qualify for the lsat round

Tilikum17

Russman wrote: »

Totally agree that the reaction has been a bit over the top, but hey, it is what it is.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a weakened field per se, but no doubt its easier to beat 29 guys than 155 guys, especially nowadays when there is so much strength in depth on tour, i.e. basically anyone who tees it up can win in a given week. You don't often see anyone going out with the lead on Sunday, shooting over par and still winning, if its a full field event of a decent status.

I’d say it’s a lot harder to beat 29 guys that are in the best form, playing the best golf over the last few weeks/months

Just look at all the big events this year, (wgc & majors) they’ve all been won by big name players. Where’s the strength & depth in the big tournaments? Why aren’t they winning those ones?
If the likes of the best players in the world couldn’t beat tiger, how do you expect ‘normal’ tour pros to him.
They’d fill their trunks faster than poor Rory did.

Tiger’s winning that was absolutely ridiculous, yet people will still try to take away from it.

Tilikum17

Niles Crane wrote: »

I think this is his 15th win since his last major win.I think most people thought once they saw his gradual improvement this year that he would win an event again the big question is can he win a major again.

It's great for him to win it but in some ways I think the reaction has been a little over the top. He won what is a PGA tour event with a weakened field as only the top 30 were in the field as opposed to having the top 70 or 80 in the field which would be the case in a Major,WGC or Players Championship.

Everyone that won a major, a wgc or the players championship were in the field at the tour championship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_PGA_Tour

First Up

Tilikum17 wrote:

Tiger’s winning that was absolutely ridiculous, yet people will still try to take away from it.

Nobody is taking anything away from it. That doesn't change the fact that 30-1 is better odds than 150-1. Anyone in the field at PGA tour event is capable of winning. Some are more likely to do so than others of course but all these guys are in the top 1% in what they do.

Niles Crane

Tilikum17 wrote: »

Everyone that won a major, a wgc or the players championship were in the field at the tour championship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_PGA_Tour

But the point I am making is that a large number of high quality players were not in the field.

Golf is a highly unpredictable sport and because of that the smaller the field is the more likely each player is to win.

If you restricted the major championship to only the top 30 players then a large proportion of the winners over the last 15-20 years wouldn't have been in the field to compete that week.

jj72

Niles Crane wrote: »

But the point I am making is that a large number of high quality players were not in the field.

Golf is a highly unpredictable sport and because of that the smaller the field is the more likely each player is to win.

If you restricted the major championship to only the top 30 players then a large proportion of the winners over the last 15-20 years wouldn't have been in the field to compete that week.

Without checking I'd highly doubt that

slave1

Niles Crane wrote: »

... in some ways I think the reaction has been a little over the top. He won what is a PGA tour event with a weakened field as only the top 30 were in the field ...

LOL

Niles Crane

jj72 wrote: »

Without checking I'd highly doubt that

From 2001-2018 a quarter of major championships were won by players outside the top 30 in the world rankings

Thats a pretty decent proportion.

jj72

Niles Crane wrote: »

From 2001-2018 a quarter of major championships were won by players outside the top 30 in the world rankings

Thats a pretty decent proportion.

Decent...not large Plus its only happened once in the last six years

Russman

Tilikum17 wrote: »

I’d say it’s a lot harder to beat 29 guys that are in the best form, playing the best golf over the last few weeks/months

Just look at all the big events this year, (wgc & majors) they’ve all been won by big name players. Where’s the strength & depth in the big tournaments? Why aren’t they winning those ones?
If the likes of the best players in the world couldn’t beat tiger, how do you expect ‘normal’ tour pros to him.
They’d fill their trunks faster than poor Rory did.

Tiger’s winning that was absolutely ridiculous, yet people will still try to take away from it.

I'm not trying to take anything away from anything, but the fact remains that he beat 29 players in the Tour Championship. That he even teed it up is an amazing achievement in itself, never mind winning it. I've no issue with it being an incredible thing, but I do think some of the coverage is a little OTT. Take the crowd involvement and cheering away and essentially he shot over par on Sunday to win, hardly the epic performance some are claiming. I fully take the point that he didn't need to shoot under par, but he might have had to in a full field event.
Some of those 29 were in awful form and basically were there because of their form in the early season - Phil, Bubba, arguably even DJ.
Who says top 30 in the FedEx is the magic line between the "best players in the world" and "normal" tour pros ? I'd venture that the guy who finished 31st on the FedEx is a bit more than a "normal" tour pro.

Tiger's win was incredible, only time will tell if it was the sting in the tail, or a real turnaround in his fortunes.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

I'm not trying to take anything away from anything, but the fact remains that he beat 29 players in the Tour Championship.

None of those other 29 players could manage it...
You can only beat whats in front of you.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

None of those other 29 players could manage it...
You can only beat whats in front of you.

The OP was its was harder to beat the 29 best in form players in the world and that simply isnt the case

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

The OP was its was harder to beat the 29 best in form players in the world and that simply isnt the case

The 29 best current players are whats hard to beat, not the next 100 or so who rarely contend or win.

Do you think it would be significantly harder to win a tournament if there were 1000 players in it?

I don't, because the more players you add, the worse they are.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

The 29 best current players are whats hard to beat, not the next 100 or so who rarely contend or win.

Do you think it would be significantly harder to win a tournament if there were 1000 players in it?

I don't, because the more players you add, the worse they are.

150 of the worlds best players would be harder yes his % chance to win would reduce. There is a point where the number of players added wouldnt reduce any further but it sure aint 30