12/21/24
January 28, 2007
Unlike anything we'll ever see again, that is for sure.
posted by tieguy at 07:33 PM on January 28, 2007
But against a cast of challengers short on experience and victories, the world's No. 1 player met little resistance in winning the Buick Invitational for the third straight year. Woods met little resistance? He was losing by two strokes heading into the back nine, and Howell birdied three of the final four holes. Christ, don't make it like he was playing the junior varsity at some podunk college.
posted by wfrazerjr at 07:42 PM on January 28, 2007
Tiger is freakin' awesome , but just how long will it be before some jealous tour player starts juicin' up? Is that what it's gonna take to beat him?? I don't know alot about steroids and their effect but could they possibly help someone on the golf course?
posted by jknemo at 08:28 PM on January 28, 2007
Steroids aren't going to help a player beat Tiger. It's not like Tiger is just out there hitting the ball further than anybody else. (He's not.) It's that he's making the shots other players just don't have the confidence to attempt.
posted by Jeffwa at 08:34 PM on January 28, 2007
It isn't that Tiger is a machine. He is playing so much smarter than everyone else. He doesn't have to hit the ball 325 yards off the tee any more. He hits his metal wood, his iron stinger, or a 3 wood stinger and places the ball right where he wants it. From there, it is an iron to the green. Tiger has got to be one of the best ever with distance control. Either Tiger will have to have a bad weekend or someone will have to have an out of body experience to beat him.
posted by dbt302 at 09:54 PM on January 28, 2007
It's that he's making the shots other players just don't have the confidence to attempt. I agree with your assertion Jeffwa. I would also add Tiger makes shots that other players simply can't. But more important than his physical talent, Tiger just has an unmatched mental determination to win. Just when most players thought they were closing the talent gap against Tiger, he raises the bar again. Kudos the Charles Howell III for hanging in there. He made a great run under pressure and came up a tad short. He undoubtibly will draw confidence from playing the back nine one shot better than Tiger. This could be the year he finally lives up to his potential. I will dream tonight about ripping a fairway metal 275 yards and sticking it on the green on the fly. That shot by Tiger on the 10th hole led to an eagle and reeked mental havoc on his opponents.
posted by danjel at 10:08 PM on January 28, 2007
Sweet. I hope he dominates the entire tour, wins every event. It's captivating to watch someone compete against themself.
posted by vito90 at 10:37 PM on January 28, 2007
It's not like Tiger is just out there hitting the ball further than anybody else. (He's not.) True, Tiger's not outdriving everybody on the tour, but, when he needs to, he can knock the ball well over 300 yds. I've watched him hit in the 340-350 range and not even sweat it. What percentage of the tour has that in their bag? The other thing that bothers me is this: why, when Tiger can pound the ball so far, do you "Tiger-proof" (not my word) a course by lengthening it? Wouldn't it make more sense to put more trouble out there and make it about shot-making? To me, "Tiger-proofing" is ridiculous if not impossible, but, if you didn't lengthen the course and did make it about shot-making, you wouldn't be making guys like Justin Leonard obsolete.
posted by hellamarine at 11:56 PM on January 28, 2007
Make Poverty History Make Justin Leonard Obsolete I can see that taking off. I for one would wear that armband. I don't think the lengthening of courses has much to do with Tiger anymore, although you could maybe argue that he inspired a certain urgency in the development of titanium drivers that meant everyone could hit it 300-325. If they didn't lengthen the courses, you'd be making everything stronger than a seven iron obsolete. I hope he dominates the entire tour, wins every event. It's captivating to watch someone compete against themself. If you don't like watching Tiger win golf tournaments then you don't like sporting excellence and are a fan instead of drama.
posted by JJ at 03:50 AM on January 29, 2007
Was there any doubt this tournament was over Saturday afternoon?
posted by mjkredliner at 06:01 AM on January 29, 2007
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.
posted by dyams at 07:34 AM on January 29, 2007
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.)
posted by chicobangs at 09:23 AM on January 29, 2007
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.
posted by bobrolloff at 10:38 AM on January 29, 2007
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.
posted by bperk at 10:47 AM on January 29, 2007
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......
posted by bobrolloff at 10:54 AM on January 29, 2007
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).
posted by dyams at 11:19 AM on January 29, 2007
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."
posted by bperk at 11:23 AM on January 29, 2007
I guess people just want to follow, witness, and be part of history. That's sure as hell why I watch.
posted by chicobangs at 11:47 AM on January 29, 2007
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.
posted by bperk at 12:27 PM on January 29, 2007
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.
posted by srw12 at 12:32 PM on January 29, 2007
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.
posted by TheQatarian at 01:11 PM on January 29, 2007
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.
posted by Cave_Man at 05:18 PM on January 29, 2007
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.
posted by grum@work at 06:51 PM on January 29, 2007
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.
posted by Ghastly1 at 07:13 PM on January 29, 2007
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". :)
posted by danjel at 01:20 AM on January 30, 2007
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.
posted by JJ at 05:18 AM on January 30, 2007
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.
posted by afx237vi at 04:27 PM on January 30, 2007
The man is a machine. Just when most other players were thinking its a new season, Tiger reminds them who is still boss.