Tiger Woods (4 Viewers)

[sho nuff]

Below is the rule. Noticed the part about ignorance of the rule not being an excuse. The actual rule was meant for a golfer that didn't notice that a leaf fell off the tree while he was making a shot from under the tree, or if he imperceptably grounded his club in the sand and didn't know that he did this. It is not meant for ignorance of an actual rule. It is meant for when the golfer was unaware that he commited an infraction. The whole purpose of this rule was for when a viewer phoned in and 'tattled' on a player because the TV replay shows a leaf falling off that tree in the right corner of the screen (that the golfer was completely unaware of). The only reason Tiger got to continue was because it's Tiger.

This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.

In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognising that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.

So again...you think you know this rule and all that has to do with it better than those making the decisions right?

BTW..interesting

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--photos-show-tiger-woods-may-not-have-deserved-a-two-stroke-penalty-204353354.html

I am only arguing that the rule was incorrectly applied to Tiger in this case (because it's Tiger). And I am not a Tiger hater (before this). I think Tiger had a chance to show alot of class and DQ himself Saturday morning and missed a great chance to look honorable in alot of peoples eyes. Most golfers would have DQ'd themselves.

I am not arguing that he was 2 yards back from where he should have taken the shot. I am only going by what Tiger said and what some viewers pointed out.

And you are arguing that as if you know better than those who made the decision...and doing so based on your own little theory that this is why they acted.

He was not going to DQ himself for something he did not do wrong...did not cheat.

And no, I doubt most golfers would have DQ'ed themselves despite what some of the older guys claim at this point.

 

[Nipsey]

lol @ the guys who watch golf on tv twice a year telling the internet that the ruling as a just one. If this was some shlep like Leishman botching that drop, signing a wrong score and then telling some Bill Macatee type that he didn't know the rule he'd have been home riding kangaroos by Saturday night. Complete joke. Be interesting to see if Chamblee is allowed on the grounds next year.

 

[sho nuff]

lol @ the guys who watch golf on tv twice a year telling the internet that the ruling as a just one. If this was some shlep like Leishman botching that drop, signing a wrong score and then telling some Bill Macatee type that he didn't know the rule he'd have been home riding kangaroos by Saturday night. Complete joke. Be interesting to see if Chamblee is allowed on the grounds next year.

lol @ people like you and AJ who just think you know so much more and the rest of us must not watch or know much about golf.

I watch far more than twice a year and have been playing for almost 30 years now.

The joke is people like you continuing the same scthick and thinking you know something.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

lol @ the guys who watch golf on tv twice a year telling the internet that the ruling as a just one. If this was some shlep like Leishman botching that drop, signing a wrong score and then telling some Bill Macatee type that he didn't know the rule he'd have been home riding kangaroos by Saturday night. Complete joke. Be interesting to see if Chamblee is allowed on the grounds next year.

Internet don't play that.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Below is the rule. Noticed the part about ignorance of the rule not being an excuse. The actual rule was meant for a golfer that didn't notice that a leaf fell off the tree while he was making a shot from under the tree, or if he imperceptably grounded his club in the sand and didn't know that he did this. It is not meant for ignorance of an actual rule. It is meant for when the golfer was unaware that he commited an infraction. The whole purpose of this rule was for when a viewer phoned in and 'tattled' on a player because the TV replay shows a leaf falling off that tree in the right corner of the screen (that the golfer was completely unaware of). The only reason Tiger got to continue was because it's Tiger.

This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.

In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognising that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.

So again...you think you know this rule and all that has to do with it better than those making the decisions right?

BTW..interesting

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--photos-show-tiger-woods-may-not-have-deserved-a-two-stroke-penalty-204353354.html

I am only arguing that the rule was incorrectly applied to Tiger in this case (because it's Tiger). And I am not a Tiger hater (before this). I think Tiger had a chance to show alot of class and DQ himself Saturday morning and missed a great chance to look honorable in alot of peoples eyes. Most golfers would have DQ'd themselves.

I am not arguing that he was 2 yards back from where he should have taken the shot. I am only going by what Tiger said and what some viewers pointed out.

And you are arguing that as if you know better than those who made the decision...and doing so based on your own little theory that this is why they acted.

He was not going to DQ himself for something he did not do wrong...did not cheat.

And no, I doubt most golfers would have DQ'ed themselves despite what some of the older guys claim at this point.

I'm only arguing this based upon the rule and why it was written. If you can point me in another direction besides saying that "all the people that kiss Tiger's ### say it should be interpreted this way" than please point it out. Please don't forget about how much pressure is on the rules committee from the TV networks to make sure that Tiger is playing on the weekend.

Do some research for yourself about the rule and then come back with a valid argument. Please show me how I can interpret the rule in any other way and I will change my stance.

There's a reason why alot of the older guys say that he should have DQ'd himself. They are the ones with more courage that don't have to play in Tiger's shadow for the next 15 years.

 

[Nipsey]

lol @ the guys who watch golf on tv twice a year telling the internet that the ruling as a just one. If this was some shlep like Leishman botching that drop, signing a wrong score and then telling some Bill Macatee type that he didn't know the rule he'd have been home riding kangaroos by Saturday night. Complete joke. Be interesting to see if Chamblee is allowed on the grounds next year.

lol @ people like you and AJ who just think you know so much more and the rest of us must not watch or know much about golf.

I watch far more than twice a year and have been playing for almost 30 years now.

The joke is people like you continuing the same scthick and thinking you know something.

You bet, champ.

 

[sho nuff]

Below is the rule. Noticed the part about ignorance of the rule not being an excuse. The actual rule was meant for a golfer that didn't notice that a leaf fell off the tree while he was making a shot from under the tree, or if he imperceptably grounded his club in the sand and didn't know that he did this. It is not meant for ignorance of an actual rule. It is meant for when the golfer was unaware that he commited an infraction. The whole purpose of this rule was for when a viewer phoned in and 'tattled' on a player because the TV replay shows a leaf falling off that tree in the right corner of the screen (that the golfer was completely unaware of). The only reason Tiger got to continue was because it's Tiger.

This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.

In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognising that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.

So again...you think you know this rule and all that has to do with it better than those making the decisions right?

BTW..interesting

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--photos-show-tiger-woods-may-not-have-deserved-a-two-stroke-penalty-204353354.html

I am only arguing that the rule was incorrectly applied to Tiger in this case (because it's Tiger). And I am not a Tiger hater (before this). I think Tiger had a chance to show alot of class and DQ himself Saturday morning and missed a great chance to look honorable in alot of peoples eyes. Most golfers would have DQ'd themselves.

I am not arguing that he was 2 yards back from where he should have taken the shot. I am only going by what Tiger said and what some viewers pointed out.

And you are arguing that as if you know better than those who made the decision...and doing so based on your own little theory that this is why they acted.

He was not going to DQ himself for something he did not do wrong...did not cheat.

And no, I doubt most golfers would have DQ'ed themselves despite what some of the older guys claim at this point.

I'm only arguing this based upon the rule and why it was written. If you can point me in another direction besides saying that "all the people that kiss Tiger's ### say it should be interpreted this way" than please point it out. Please don't forget about how much pressure is on the rules committee from the TV networks to make sure that Tiger is playing on the weekend.

Do some research for yourself about the rule and then come back with a valid argument. Please show me how I can interpret the rule in any other way and I will change my stance.

There's a reason why alot of the older guys say that he should have DQ'd himself. They are the ones with more courage that don't have to play in Tiger's shadow for the next 15 years.

I can point you to the committee that decided it being far more knowledgeable about the rule and the intent of all of it than any of us.

But you can claim that they are just all the people that are kissing Tiger's ### as your excuse if you would like.

My research is simple...the rule was changed...and applied by a committee and ruled to be the correct punishment.

The guy played...sucked early on the front and still did not win.

The older guys say it because many of them are dusty old farts whining about any advantage the newer guys may have...(of course when they think that they also forget that in the heat of the moment they likely would have done the same damn thing Tiger did). Does not take courage to claim what they "would have done".

 

[Chaz McNulty]

lol @ the guys who watch golf on tv twice a year telling the internet that the ruling as a just one. If this was some shlep like Leishman botching that drop, signing a wrong score and then telling some Bill Macatee type that he didn't know the rule he'd have been home riding kangaroos by Saturday night. Complete joke. Be interesting to see if Chamblee is allowed on the grounds next year.

This is the sad part. The only one that had the balls to say the correct thing (and what every pro golfer was thinking) will probably lose his job.

 

[sho nuff]

lol @ the guys who watch golf on tv twice a year telling the internet that the ruling as a just one. If this was some shlep like Leishman botching that drop, signing a wrong score and then telling some Bill Macatee type that he didn't know the rule he'd have been home riding kangaroos by Saturday night. Complete joke. Be interesting to see if Chamblee is allowed on the grounds next year.

This is the sad part. The only one that had the balls to say the correct thing (and what every pro golfer was thinking) will probably lose his job.

I also like how, not only do you know all the rules better than all these people actually doing the work in the profession...you also know what all the other pro golfers think.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Below is the rule. Noticed the part about ignorance of the rule not being an excuse. The actual rule was meant for a golfer that didn't notice that a leaf fell off the tree while he was making a shot from under the tree, or if he imperceptably grounded his club in the sand and didn't know that he did this. It is not meant for ignorance of an actual rule. It is meant for when the golfer was unaware that he commited an infraction. The whole purpose of this rule was for when a viewer phoned in and 'tattled' on a player because the TV replay shows a leaf falling off that tree in the right corner of the screen (that the golfer was completely unaware of). The only reason Tiger got to continue was because it's Tiger.

This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.

In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognising that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.

So again...you think you know this rule and all that has to do with it better than those making the decisions right?

BTW..interesting

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--photos-show-tiger-woods-may-not-have-deserved-a-two-stroke-penalty-204353354.html

I am only arguing that the rule was incorrectly applied to Tiger in this case (because it's Tiger). And I am not a Tiger hater (before this). I think Tiger had a chance to show alot of class and DQ himself Saturday morning and missed a great chance to look honorable in alot of peoples eyes. Most golfers would have DQ'd themselves.

I am not arguing that he was 2 yards back from where he should have taken the shot. I am only going by what Tiger said and what some viewers pointed out.

And you are arguing that as if you know better than those who made the decision...and doing so based on your own little theory that this is why they acted.

He was not going to DQ himself for something he did not do wrong...did not cheat.

And no, I doubt most golfers would have DQ'ed themselves despite what some of the older guys claim at this point.

I'm only arguing this based upon the rule and why it was written. If you can point me in another direction besides saying that "all the people that kiss Tiger's ### say it should be interpreted this way" than please point it out. Please don't forget about how much pressure is on the rules committee from the TV networks to make sure that Tiger is playing on the weekend.

Do some research for yourself about the rule and then come back with a valid argument. Please show me how I can interpret the rule in any other way and I will change my stance.

There's a reason why alot of the older guys say that he should have DQ'd himself. They are the ones with more courage that don't have to play in Tiger's shadow for the next 15 years.

I can point you to the committee that decided it being far more knowledgeable about the rule and the intent of all of it than any of us.

But you can claim that they are just all the people that are kissing Tiger's ### as your excuse if you would like.

My research is simple...the rule was changed...and applied by a committee and ruled to be the correct punishment.

The guy played...sucked early on the front and still did not win.

The older guys say it because many of them are dusty old farts whining about any advantage the newer guys may have...(of course when they think that they also forget that in the heat of the moment they likely would have done the same damn thing Tiger did). Does not take courage to claim what they "would have done".

Shonuff, I really think you should read the rule and read everything about the intent of the rule and then judge for yourself. You don't need a comittee to make that judgement for you. If you believe that they made the correct judgement after reading and learning about the rule for yourself, then I'm fine with that. We can agree to disagree. I think you do yourself an injustice to just go along with a rules comittee that can have obvious bias.

 

[Nipsey]

Would you nerds stop fighting about the rules. If you want to waste pixels and argue about mundane crap just for aegiment's sake, go to law school, you'll fit right in.

I love you like a stranger but you can't be telling people what they can or can't post. You start threads when you're holding in a deuce!

 

[dparker713]

Below is the rule. Noticed the part about ignorance of the rule not being an excuse. The actual rule was meant for a golfer that didn't notice that a leaf fell off the tree while he was making a shot from under the tree, or if he imperceptably grounded his club in the sand and didn't know that he did this. It is not meant for ignorance of an actual rule. It is meant for when the golfer was unaware that he commited an infraction. The whole purpose of this rule was for when a viewer phoned in and 'tattled' on a player because the TV replay shows a leaf falling off that tree in the right corner of the screen (that the golfer was completely unaware of). The only reason Tiger got to continue was because it's Tiger.

This revision to Decision 33-7/4.5 addresses the situation where a player is not aware he has breached a Rule because of facts that he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered prior to returning his score card. Under this revised decision and at the discretion of the Committee, the player still receives the penalty associated with the breach of the underlying Rule, but is not disqualified.

In revising the decision, The R&A and the USGA confirm that the disqualification penalty still applies for score card breaches that arise from ignorance of the Rules of Golf. As such, this decision reinforces that it is still the responsibility of the player to know the Rules, while recognising that there may be some rare situations where it is reasonable that a player is unaware of the factual circumstances of a breach.

So again...you think you know this rule and all that has to do with it better than those making the decisions right?

BTW..interesting

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--photos-show-tiger-woods-may-not-have-deserved-a-two-stroke-penalty-204353354.html

I am only arguing that the rule was incorrectly applied to Tiger in this case (because it's Tiger). And I am not a Tiger hater (before this). I think Tiger had a chance to show alot of class and DQ himself Saturday morning and missed a great chance to look honorable in alot of peoples eyes. Most golfers would have DQ'd themselves.

I am not arguing that he was 2 yards back from where he should have taken the shot. I am only going by what Tiger said and what some viewers pointed out.

And you are arguing that as if you know better than those who made the decision...and doing so based on your own little theory that this is why they acted.

He was not going to DQ himself for something he did not do wrong...did not cheat.

And no, I doubt most golfers would have DQ'ed themselves despite what some of the older guys claim at this point.

I'm only arguing this based upon the rule and why it was written. If you can point me in another direction besides saying that "all the people that kiss Tiger's ### say it should be interpreted this way" than please point it out. Please don't forget about how much pressure is on the rules committee from the TV networks to make sure that Tiger is playing on the weekend.

Do some research for yourself about the rule and then come back with a valid argument. Please show me how I can interpret the rule in any other way and I will change my stance.

There's a reason why alot of the older guys say that he should have DQ'd himself. They are the ones with more courage that don't have to play in Tiger's shadow for the next 15 years.

The rule is purposefully written in a vague manner. It's exceedingly short and I quoted it in full above. It was designed to provide the rule committees discretion and any interpretation of the rule that prevents the committee from having discretion is contrary to the spirit and letter of the rule.

 

[Raider Nation]

Would you nerds stop fighting about the rules. If you want to waste pixels and argue about mundane crap just for aegiment's sake, go to law school, you'll fit right in.

I love you like a stranger but you can't be telling people what they can or can't post. You start threads when you're holding in a deuce!

 

[JuniorNB]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

 

[Joe T]

How pissed is he tonight? An inch either way on 15 and he's in the playoff at worst.

Adam Scott didn't hit any pins. Guess he was the better player this week.

 

[Joe T]

Would you nerds stop fighting about the rules. If you want to waste pixels and argue about mundane crap just for aegiment's sake, go to law school, you'll fit right in.

Or any timmycochet thread, whichever is easier.

 

[zoonation]

I still won't concede that he is back to dominant Tiger. I don't think he ever gets back there. Too many good players now. But I do think that bad break at 15 on Friday cost him the tournament. I think he wins if that ball misses the flag. I feel a bit bad for him, actually. Really tough break and then the fiasco that ensued clearly had an effect on him.

 

[Joe T]

What is the current over/under on future majors for Tiger?

It's gotta be 2 right?

 

[Otis]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Oh right. A ridiculous 4 stroke turnaround on 15 and he still finishes WAY ahead of Phil and Rory and everyone else loved in here, and you're willing to say he's "done."

Got it.

 

[zoonation]

What is the current over/under on future majors for Tiger?

It's gotta be 2 right?

I'd probably take the over on that.

I've got a $1,000 bet with Otis that he doesn't break Jack's record. I'm more nervous this year than last about it, but still pretty confident. There is so much talent out there on tour now. 5 majors for a 37 year old on a bum knee is a tall order.

 

[Abraham]

What is the current over/under on future majors for Tiger? It's gotta be 2 right?

I would guess 2.5 to bring in action on both sides.

 

[Joe T]

What is the current over/under on future majors for Tiger?

It's gotta be 2 right?

I'd probably take the over on that.

I've got a $1,000 bet with Otis that he doesn't break Jack's record. I'm more nervous this year than last about it, but still pretty confident. There is so much talent out there on tour now. 5 majors for a 37 year old on a bum knee is a tall order.

So you are going to keep track of Otis for the next 20 years?

 

[zoonation]

What is the current over/under on future majors for Tiger?

It's gotta be 2 right?

I'd probably take the over on that.

I've got a $1,000 bet with Otis that he doesn't break Jack's record. I'm more nervous this year than last about it, but still pretty confident. There is so much talent out there on tour now. 5 majors for a 37 year old on a bum knee is a tall order.

So you are going to keep track of Otis for the next 20 years?

lol.

you bet I am.

I guess I should have nailed down some better terms.

 

[sho nuff]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Yeah...its not as if he was not in the thick of it going into 15 before hitting the stick.

Not shocking Newbie can't see what actually happened and is just sticking with his usual schtick.

 

[JuniorNB]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Oh right. A ridiculous 4 stroke turnaround on 15 and he still finishes WAY ahead of Phil and Rory and everyone else loved in here, and you're willing to say he's "done."

Got it.

I didn't say he was done. Not today, or ever. He's not the dominant, intimidating Tiger of old. Sorry that after five years, you still can't concede that.

 

[JuniorNB]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Yeah...its not as if he was not in the thick of it going into 15 before hitting the stick.

Not shocking Newbie can't see what actually happened and is just sticking with his usual schtick.

What happened on 15. What happened on 15. What happened on 15. You Tiger apologists have had that on repeat since Saturday. We get it, Woods is the first golfer to get an unlucky break. Maybe they should give him an honorary jacket. Tied for fifth, whoopee. He was the overwhelming favorite. Again.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I say we all check back in here 15 years from now to settle all bets.

 

[sho nuff]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Oh right. A ridiculous 4 stroke turnaround on 15 and he still finishes WAY ahead of Phil and Rory and everyone else loved in here, and you're willing to say he's "done."

Got it.

I didn't say he was done. Not today, or ever. He's not the dominant, intimidating Tiger of old. Sorry that after five years, you still can't concede that.

I don't think I ever stated he was dominant right now...or intimidating.

Don't believe anyone has claimed that.

But thanks for the effort I guess.

 

[sho nuff]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Yeah...its not as if he was not in the thick of it going into 15 before hitting the stick.

Not shocking Newbie can't see what actually happened and is just sticking with his usual schtick.

What happened on 15. What happened on 15. What happened on 15. You Tiger apologists have had that on repeat since Saturday. We get it, Woods is the first golfer to get an unlucky break. Maybe they should give him an honorary jacket. Tied for fifth, whoopee. He was the overwhelming favorite. Again.

Where have I claimed he is the first or only golfer to have such a break.

Not at all...but even those against Tiger concede that if that ball is off that mark by an inch he is likely in the thick of it all the whole weekend.

Its a 4 stroke swing going into the weekend of a major while tied for the lead at the time.

You can keep trying to diminish that and act as if it was meaningless...but reasonable people will rightfully say otherwise.

And yeah...top 5 at a major is terrible isn't it?

 

[JuniorNB]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Yeah...its not as if he was not in the thick of it going into 15 before hitting the stick.Not shocking Newbie can't see what actually happened and is just sticking with his usual schtick.

What happened on 15. What happened on 15. What happened on 15. You Tiger apologists have had that on repeat since Saturday. We get it, Woods is the first golfer to get an unlucky break. Maybe they should give him an honorary jacket. Tied for fifth, whoopee. He was the overwhelming favorite. Again.

Where have I claimed he is the first or only golfer to have such a break.Not at all...but even those against Tiger concede that if that ball is off that mark by an inch he is likely in the thick of it all the whole weekend.Its a 4 stroke swing going into the weekend of a major while tied for the lead at the time. You can keep trying to diminish that and act as if it was meaningless...but reasonable people will rightfully say otherwise. And yeah...top 5 at a major is terrible isn't it?

The 'bad break' was a two point swing. Him not knowing the rules of the game he's played since he was two, is not a bad break. Those two strokes were pure stupidity.

 

[sho nuff]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Yeah...its not as if he was not in the thick of it going into 15 before hitting the stick.Not shocking Newbie can't see what actually happened and is just sticking with his usual schtick.

What happened on 15. What happened on 15. What happened on 15. You Tiger apologists have had that on repeat since Saturday. We get it, Woods is the first golfer to get an unlucky break. Maybe they should give him an honorary jacket. Tied for fifth, whoopee. He was the overwhelming favorite. Again.

Where have I claimed he is the first or only golfer to have such a break.Not at all...but even those against Tiger concede that if that ball is off that mark by an inch he is likely in the thick of it all the whole weekend.Its a 4 stroke swing going into the weekend of a major while tied for the lead at the time. You can keep trying to diminish that and act as if it was meaningless...but reasonable people will rightfully say otherwise. And yeah...top 5 at a major is terrible isn't it?

The 'bad break' was a two point swing. Him not knowing the rules of the game he's played since he was two, is not a bad break. Those two strokes were pure stupidity.

Without the 2 point swing of the bad break...the other 2 don't happen. You cannot separate the two (eventhough I agree with the premise that the 2 stroke penalty was on him).

 

[JuniorNB]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Yeah...its not as if he was not in the thick of it going into 15 before hitting the stick.Not shocking Newbie can't see what actually happened and is just sticking with his usual schtick.

What happened on 15. What happened on 15. What happened on 15. You Tiger apologists have had that on repeat since Saturday. We get it, Woods is the first golfer to get an unlucky break. Maybe they should give him an honorary jacket. Tied for fifth, whoopee. He was the overwhelming favorite. Again.

Where have I claimed he is the first or only golfer to have such a break.Not at all...but even those against Tiger concede that if that ball is off that mark by an inch he is likely in the thick of it all the whole weekend.Its a 4 stroke swing going into the weekend of a major while tied for the lead at the time. You can keep trying to diminish that and act as if it was meaningless...but reasonable people will rightfully say otherwise. And yeah...top 5 at a major is terrible isn't it?

The 'bad break' was a two point swing. Him not knowing the rules of the game he's played since he was two, is not a bad break. Those two strokes were pure stupidity.

Without the 2 point swing of the bad break...the other 2 don't happen. You cannot separate the two (eventhough I agree with the premise that the 2 stroke penalty was on him).

he lost because he couldn't drop a bunch of ten foot putts yesterday. Stop making excuses for him. He was a huge favorite.

 

[sho nuff]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Yeah...its not as if he was not in the thick of it going into 15 before hitting the stick.Not shocking Newbie can't see what actually happened and is just sticking with his usual schtick.

What happened on 15. What happened on 15. What happened on 15. You Tiger apologists have had that on repeat since Saturday. We get it, Woods is the first golfer to get an unlucky break. Maybe they should give him an honorary jacket. Tied for fifth, whoopee. He was the overwhelming favorite. Again.

Where have I claimed he is the first or only golfer to have such a break.Not at all...but even those against Tiger concede that if that ball is off that mark by an inch he is likely in the thick of it all the whole weekend.Its a 4 stroke swing going into the weekend of a major while tied for the lead at the time. You can keep trying to diminish that and act as if it was meaningless...but reasonable people will rightfully say otherwise. And yeah...top 5 at a major is terrible isn't it?

The 'bad break' was a two point swing. Him not knowing the rules of the game he's played since he was two, is not a bad break. Those two strokes were pure stupidity.

Without the 2 point swing of the bad break...the other 2 don't happen. You cannot separate the two (eventhough I agree with the premise that the 2 stroke penalty was on him).

he lost because he couldn't drop a bunch of ten foot putts yesterday. Stop making excuses for him. He was a huge favorite.

Says the guy who can't admit a 4 stroke swing being a pretty big f'ing deal.

And yes, his putting on the first 9 yesterday sucked and was a reason as well. It was not just one thing.

But you keep up that effort of putting your head into the sand about him.

And think that posting that he was a huge favorite over and over again will really mean anything.

He will again be a favorite for the US Open too.

 

[JuniorNB]

The semantic gymnastics required of you guys in here is incredible.He's "back," dorks. He's not "done."Close 'er up, Maurile.

Looks like you're right again, Otis. He's back. Back to being what he's been the last couple of years. Awesome in the small events leading up to the majors, but can't win the big ones.

Yeah...its not as if he was not in the thick of it going into 15 before hitting the stick.Not shocking Newbie can't see what actually happened and is just sticking with his usual schtick.

What happened on 15. What happened on 15. What happened on 15. You Tiger apologists have had that on repeat since Saturday. We get it, Woods is the first golfer to get an unlucky break. Maybe they should give him an honorary jacket. Tied for fifth, whoopee. He was the overwhelming favorite. Again.

Where have I claimed he is the first or only golfer to have such a break.Not at all...but even those against Tiger concede that if that ball is off that mark by an inch he is likely in the thick of it all the whole weekend.Its a 4 stroke swing going into the weekend of a major while tied for the lead at the time. You can keep trying to diminish that and act as if it was meaningless...but reasonable people will rightfully say otherwise. And yeah...top 5 at a major is terrible isn't it?

The 'bad break' was a two point swing. Him not knowing the rules of the game he's played since he was two, is not a bad break. Those two strokes were pure stupidity.

Without the 2 point swing of the bad break...the other 2 don't happen. You cannot separate the two (eventhough I agree with the premise that the 2 stroke penalty was on him).

he lost because he couldn't drop a bunch of ten foot putts yesterday. Stop making excuses for him. He was a huge favorite.

Says the guy who can't admit a 4 stroke swing being a pretty big f'ing deal.And yes, his putting on the first 9 yesterday sucked and was a reason as well. It was not just one thing.But you keep up that effort of putting your head into the sand about him.And think that posting that he was a huge favorite over and over again will really mean anything.He will again be a favorite for the US Open too.

At what point of him being the favorite in all of these majors and continuing to not get the job done, are you going to concede that he's not the dominant golfer he was back when he was winning 7 out of 16 of these things? The guy is still very good. Great a lot of times. But Finless' entire premise was that Jack Nicklaus is safe because Tiger is done being that force he was before this thread started.

 

[sho nuff]

At what point of any of this have I said he is dominant right now?

You like to keep throwing out that red herring don't you.

All to avoid actually admitting that the 4 stroke swing played a huge part in this (which is why you do avoid that and keep trying to change things...first to it being his fault for 2 of it and now going back to the dominant line of crap).

The guy is more than just good...he is the best golfer in the world right now. He is more than just "competitive" which despite the denial of most of you...was a huge part of the premise of this topic that you keep ignoring.

 

[JuniorNB]

At what point of any of this have I said he is dominant right now?You like to keep throwing out that red herring don't you.All to avoid actually admitting that the 4 stroke swing played a huge part in this (which is why you do avoid that and keep trying to change things...first to it being his fault for 2 of it and now going back to the dominant line of crap). The guy is more than just good...he is the best golfer in the world right now. He is more than just "competitive" which despite the denial of most of you...was a huge part of the premise of this topic that you keep ignoring.

He hasn't won a major in five years. As much as it makes you cringe, there are are four 'super bowls' a year in golf. Tiger has won a bunch of AFC wild card games. I'm sure he'll kick butt in the Ace Hardware Invitational in a few weeks and the Bluebonnet Margarine Classic the following week, though.

 

[sho nuff]

At what point of any of this have I said he is dominant right now?You like to keep throwing out that red herring don't you.All to avoid actually admitting that the 4 stroke swing played a huge part in this (which is why you do avoid that and keep trying to change things...first to it being his fault for 2 of it and now going back to the dominant line of crap). The guy is more than just good...he is the best golfer in the world right now. He is more than just "competitive" which despite the denial of most of you...was a huge part of the premise of this topic that you keep ignoring.

He hasn't won a major in five years. As much as it makes you cringe, there are are four 'super bowls' a year in golf. Tiger has won a bunch of AFC wild card games.I'm sure he'll kick butt in the Ace Hardware Invitational in a few weeks and the Bluebonnet Margarine Classic the following week, though.

Does not make me cringe at all.

Keep up the red herring and diminishing these other tournaments too if you want.

Its ok to admit that 4 stroke swing friday affected some things...

 

[saintsfan]

Guys don't usually win bunches of majors after the age of 40. He still needs 5, which is a very good career for most people.

IMO, he is running out of time. I can see him winning 1 or 2 after the age of 40, but if he doesn't win 3 or so in the next 3 years, forget it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Guys don't usually win bunches of majors after the age of 40. He still needs 5, which is a very good career for most people.

IMO, he is running out of time. I can see him winning 1 or 2 after the age of 40, but if he doesn't win 3 or so in the next 3 years, forget it.

Guys don't usually win 14 before the age of 35 either. Not sure historical data is all that useful here.

 

[DiStefano]

Earlier in this thread, I believe I stated that I did not think he would break Jack's record. At the time, he was having problems with his swing and control. Those seem to have gone away, and physically, I think he will be in contention for the majors for the next few years. But he no longer is dominant, and there are a lot of younger players who can get hot at the right time (and older ones too; witness Cabrera at 43 and ranked 269th in the world). The question may now be more mental than physical. Tiger rightly figured he needed a 65 on the final day to win. But he got a 70. His failure to win over the last few years, for one reason or another, seems to be taking its toll on his mental fortitude. He can do it; but he may not.

 

[Otis]

What is the current over/under on future majors for Tiger?

It's gotta be 2 right?

I'd probably take the over on that.

I've got a $1,000 bet with Otis that he doesn't break Jack's record. I'm more nervous this year than last about it, but still pretty confident. There is so much talent out there on tour now. 5 majors for a 37 year old on a bum knee is a tall order.

So you are going to keep track of Otis for the next 20 years?

lol.

you bet I am.

I guess I should have nailed down some better terms.

Oh like I'm going anywhere.

 

[grateful zed]

Guys don't usually win bunches of majors after the age of 40. He still needs 5, which is a very good career for most people.

IMO, he is running out of time. I can see him winning 1 or 2 after the age of 40, but if he doesn't win 3 or so in the next 3 years, forget it.

hi fin.

 

[Raider Nation]

It appears Jim Nantz was the one who ratted out Tiger. That should make for a cordial relationship between them going forward.

 

[Apple Jack]

It appears Jim Nantz was the one who ratted out Tiger. That should make for a cordial relationship between them going forward.

I read that Nantz was one of many who connected the dots between the drop and his comments, but there were plenty of people on that ship. Slugger White's phone "blew up" with texts from tour players after his interview. But Nantz has always hated Tiger and Tiger seemingly couldn't possibly care less that Nantz exists, so I don't think anything is going to change there.

 

[Raider Nation]

It appears Jim Nantz was the one who ratted out Tiger. That should make for a cordial relationship between them going forward.

I read that Nantz was one of many who connected the dots between the drop and his comments, but there were plenty of people on that ship. Slugger White's phone "blew up" with texts from tour players after his interview. But Nantz has always hated Tiger and Tiger seemingly couldn't possibly care less that Nantz exists, so I don't think anything is going to change there.

http://deadspin.com/punk-###-snitches-who-ratted-out-tiger-woods-identified-486213426

 

[DiStefano]

It appears Jim Nantz was the one who ratted out Tiger. That should make for a cordial relationship between them going forward.

I read that Nantz was one of many who connected the dots between the drop and his comments, but there were plenty of people on that ship. Slugger White's phone "blew up" with texts from tour players after his interview. But Nantz has always hated Tiger and Tiger seemingly couldn't possibly care less that Nantz exists, so I don't think anything is going to change there.

http://deadspin.com/punk-###-snitches-who-ratted-out-tiger-woods-identified-486213426

Whoever, did it, Tiger deserved it for not knowing the ####### rule. He's a professional for Pete's sake.

 

[mr roboto]

If Nantz didn't, someone else would have. Of course Nantz probably took pleasure in it, but if a talking head schticky white middle aged sports commentator finds out the 'Internet is rumbling' then you sure as hell know that by Saturday morning there would have been dozens of people calling in.

 

[zoonation]

Now that a couple of weeks have passed, and the various associations have come out with their "official" positions on the ruling, it seems more clear that the rules were totally bent to keep El Tigre in the tourney.

"He signed an incorrect scorecard based solely on ignorance of the rule, but because we didn't save him from his own ignorance, he isn't dq'd."

Pathetic.

But the rule didn't change. Carry on...

 

[dparker713]

Now that a couple of weeks have passed, and the various associations have come out with their "official" positions on the ruling, it seems more clear that the rules were totally bent to keep El Tigre in the tourney."He signed an incorrect scorecard based solely on ignorance of the rule, but because we didn't save him from his own ignorance, he isn't dq'd."Pathetic.But the rule didn't change. Carry on...

Someone really should have held you as a baby.

 

[derek245583]

I think the Dow Fitzerwald ruling 50 years ago takes care of any DQ argument. Precedence was set, carry on.

As for the actual golf, its what excites me most about the majors....During a 4 day span, one swing can completely ruin your chances...Its usually a series of holes, but every time you hit a driver or a treacherous approach, your tourney hangs in the balance.

Rory at 10 on Sunday 3 years ago

Tiger at 15 on Friday

Its not always the case, but its amazing how a 2 shot penalty can just eliminate you from winning a full 144 man tournament...the guys are so good.