12/21/24
August 10, 2005
Woods Lacking Aura of Invincibility : After winning 2 of 3 majors this year, Tour players still say that Tiger isn't the Tiger of 2000. Agree?
There is no way that he could be the same Tiger as 2000. He is older, married and seems to be loosing some hair. His competition is a lot stronger than it was in 2000. I wouldnt worry about his "aura". It going to be a fun Tourney to watch.
posted by daddisamm at 01:19 PM on August 10, 2005
I agree. He's the Tiger of 2005. C'mon, that's all the Tour players can do? Why don't they spend more time sharpening their game so they can beat Tiger?
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:36 PM on August 10, 2005
Someone's not paying attention. Woods is still the Man. He's one streaky Kiwi away from going for the actual Grand Slam this week. Haters can be safely ignored. Tiger may actually be better than he was in 2000. If you ask him, he certainly thinks so. Anyone saying otherwise is choosing to ignore something.
posted by chicobangs at 01:44 PM on August 10, 2005
Since Tiger came along and blew everyone away in 2000, golf has changed. The other players work harder than they use to. Technology has changed as well. Tiger has improved as well. Because the other players have improved so much over the past 5 years, the seperation has gotten smaller. Tiger is still the cream of the crop. I still say if Tiger can hit it in the fairways, he can't be beat. The only one that beats Tiger is Tiger.
posted by dbt302 at 01:49 PM on August 10, 2005
Just because he does'nt show up in blue tights and red cape, does',nt mean there's no "S" underneath. Still the best when he's got his game on.
posted by volfire at 02:04 PM on August 10, 2005
It's not even close. Just because one out of nearly 100 entries in a given tournament may edge him out, that means he's not invincible? Until I see someone else start winning multiple majors on a regular basis, preferably in the same year, then Tiger's near-invincible. He wins this weekend, every single player should bow to him after the final hole. Three majors and a second-place finish in the other? That would be incredible in this day and age.
posted by dyams at 03:05 PM on August 10, 2005
If I was a tour player, I would be saying the same thing even if I didn't believe Tiger is not invincible. The one thing Tiger has that no other player does is his determination to win. Tiger plays every tournament to win because he knows he has a chance every time he plays. How many other players can say that?
posted by panteeze at 03:17 PM on August 10, 2005
Tiger is like a wife. He was fantastic in the beginning, just couldnt take your eyes off what he could do. Five years later he's still doing it, but youre used to itt so it seems to have lost its luster. JMO
posted by MNJ1193 at 03:30 PM on August 10, 2005
Tiger isn't the same player he was in 2000. Back then, he was dominating in the majors AND in the "regular" tournaments. He isn't doing that this year, so I'd agree and say that (currently) he's not as good as he was in 2000. 2000: 9 tournament wins, 4 second place finishes, 1 third place finish, 17 top-ten finishes in 20 events 2005: 4 tournament wins, 3 second place finishes, 2 third place finishes, 9 top-ten finishes in 15 events So even if he wins the next 5 tournaments, he still won't match what he did in 2000. However, I believe he is more determined in 2005 than he was in 2000. After reading all those reports about how he's "slumping" (10 majors without a win), I get the feeling that this year is a f*ck-you to his detractors. I wouldn't be surprised to see him run off a 9-of-12 majors streak now (including the 2-of-3 he's already won).
posted by grum@work at 03:30 PM on August 10, 2005
Tiger Woods still is the best golfer in the world. Forget the numbers in 2000. That is a year that almost no one can match. However, how many touneys do you have to win before people stop pestering you. He has won two of the three majors this year (The third, he was within spitting distance of the win). There is only one golfer in history who has more major wins than Tiger and Tiger is on pace to surpass him. Every pro athelete has a slump. Tiger has worked through his and is back on top where he belongs.
posted by mcstan13 at 03:42 PM on August 10, 2005
He wins this weekend, every single player should bow to him after the final hole. If he wins this weekend, I suspect they will, happily, without exception. His greatness transcends the concept of competition, and Ernie, Vijay, Phil, Monty, Sergio, Furyk, Weir, Retief and the rest aree respectful enough of Tiger and each other to know when they are watching it all go down. They may not be happy about it, and they'll do their level best to take him out, but when he's won in the past, they've given him the respect he's deserved.
posted by chicobangs at 03:50 PM on August 10, 2005
Tiger made the current golfers as good as they are today. We need to respect the standard Tiger has set for all golfers. It is rediculus to think he can be the same golfer as he was in 2000. I have changed in five years you?
posted by Dragon at 05:38 PM on August 10, 2005
Tiger is just as good as he was in 2000 and so is the competition. After the 2000 run. the competition with as much money as they are making, suppose to increase there game a notch or two toward trying to halt such an repeat performance by tiger.
posted by macrec1 at 08:10 PM on August 10, 2005
He's one streaky Kiwi away from going for the actual Grand Slam this week. I still reckon Tiger bottled that, you know. All he had to do was ask the question - Cambo has previous in terms of not having an answer. But he didn't, so it doesn't matter. As for Tiger not being the same as he was in 2000 - I reckon he's not far off it and everyone else has just gotten over a certain amount of the Tiger-awe they had then. In fact, the US Open is an example of sorts - Campbell might have crumpled more had he been pursued by Tiger 2000, but not because of anything Tiger was doing differently. It is a pretty chirlish thing to run with though - "Well, he's kicking all our asses, but he's not doing it as well as he did five years ago." Either way, the rest are still getting their collective ass kicked. All that said, I fancy Vijay for this one. Would love to see the two of them paired together in the final group on Sunday, a mile ahead of the field. Be like taking it back to the old-fashioned PGA format of matchplay. Reckon Vijay would destroy him to be honest.
posted by JJ at 08:16 AM on August 11, 2005
It is a pretty chirlish thing to run with though - "Well, he's kicking all our asses, but he's not doing it as well as he did five years ago." Either way, the rest are still getting their collective ass kicked. That's well said and says it all. Just because he's not winning by 15 strokes, they're all "Losing closer." That's not a good mind-set for a professional to be happy that they're losing, "But not by as much!"
posted by dyams at 10:12 AM on August 11, 2005
Tiger: +5 after Thursday's round.
posted by mayerkyl at 01:46 PM on August 11, 2005
Which is his worst opening round at a major.
posted by Ufez Jones at 03:00 PM on August 11, 2005
It is rediculus to think he can be the same golfer as he was in 2000. I have changed in five years you? You're not the world's best golfer who hasn't had his 30th birthday yet. Why assume he peaked at 25? Watching Baltusrol today, which has to be my favorite course for a major outside of St. Andrews, I was surprised that Tiger had so much trouble. There are around a half-dozen at three-under, a full eight shots ahead of him. I do think he comes back tomorrow and easily makes the cut.
posted by rcade at 05:53 PM on August 11, 2005
... No.