Tiger Wins

[johnnymarlboro]

See here's what I don't get...right there...you make complete sense till you start comparing the careers of Rory S. And Spencer Levin to TIGER Frickin WOODS...I mean really? What is your point? It has NOTHING to do with whether or not Tiger won yesterday. The need to keep reciting Tigers Hall of Fame accomplishments to make a simple point reeks of fanboyism and the real point gets lost. JMO.

If you've been paying attention, which is seems like you haven't, he was responding to Wulsy who said Tiger was marginally better then Levin and Sabbatini. Comparing to Tiger is THE point. His career is the yardstick of modern golf. No matter how much it seems some people would like it, his career did not reset after the scandal. His past accomplishments are completely relevent when comparing him to other players.

 

[Cloran]

So what I'm hearing from the haters is that Tiger won't have a "good victory" until he wins against golfers that 1) have a history of winning... 2) are playing at the the top of their game at that very moment.

I'd like to know who is on that list.

 

[DCgolf]

If you've been paying attention, which is seems like you haven't, he was responding to Wulsy who said Tiger was marginally better then Levin and Sabbatini. Comparing to Tiger is THE point. His career is the yardstick of modern golf. No matter how much it seems some people would like it, his career did not reset after the scandal. His past accomplishments are completely relevent when comparing him to other players.

Exactly. He is the record book, simply the best that ever laced em up.

 

[conkanen]

If you've been paying attention, which is seems like you haven't, he was responding to Wulsy who said Tiger was marginally better then Levin and Sabbatini.

He is comparing those guys to Post 2009 Tiger. I think I get it just fine.

 

[Erik_K]

It seems that Tiger, at times, is a victim of his own success. If Tiger finishes in the top 10 or is in contention for XYZ major, this isn't good enough. If any of Phil, Rory, Luke, etc miss a cut or finish T25 about the only thing you hear, or see, about it is in the "notable" score box when the ESPN highlight reel is rolling at 7:30.

In my opinion, Tiger's poor performance since 2009 has been blown out of proportion at least a little bit. He does have 6 top 10 finishes at Majors and because of the injury and scandal he has missed several British Opens since 2008. I think he's had around 20 top 10 finishes overall since 2009. Clearly he's had periods where he's just look miserable out there, but with 2 wins this year we very well might be seeing a glimpse of the 'old' Tiger!

 

[JonWil]

Let me restore your eyesight back to normal with some reality. Here's my response to wulsy...

Tiger got lucky on Sunday??

Tiger had 7 birdies and shot 67. (Low round of the day with 3 others)

Sabbatini had 3 birdies and shot 72.

Levin had 2 birdies and shot 75.

I don't think absurd luck had anything to do with it. And oh yeah, that was Tiger's 73rd career victory,
Sabbatini has 6 and Levin has 0. Tiger is a great golfer, they are not. Here's further proof...

Majors:

Sabbatini has played in 40 majors missed the cut in 22 and one top ten.

Levin has played in 4 majors missed the cut in 2, best finish PGA T26.

Tiger has won 14 with 21 other top tens (35 total) including second 6 times, third 3 times, fourth 5 times.

Tiger has been a great golfer and still is today. If you don't think so, that humble opinion isn't paying attention.

Nitro, Well done; integrity restored to the thread!!

 

[Cloran]

... to reiterate for the haters...

I'd like to know who is on that list.

 

[bcoak]

Faldo pointed out that his exagerrated practice swings - way left - were gone. Good sign?

 

[Matt 4-L]

That was the best I have seen Tiger swing in a long time and his putting was good too. With that being said he did get some help from the leaders Levin and Rory S., neither of those two guys played well on the back nine, chalk it up to Sunday pressure I guess. I didn't find the tournament all that exciting, I enjoy watching good golf and there was only one guy playing good golf on the backside. I know that Tiger moves the needle expecially for the fringe golfers who don't pay much attention to golf except when Tiger is winning but I enjoyed the Quail Hollow tournament more because of the better golf being played by the leaders, I just don't like to watch guys collapse and give tournaments away. Not to take anything away from Tiger's win, but I didn't find it all that exciting.

 

[mgranato]

Exactly. He is the record book, simply the best that ever laced em up.

Except for the best to ever lace em up...

Raise your hand if you are the best golfer who ever lived.

 

[Nitro7]

If you've been paying attention, which is seems like you haven't, he was responding to Wulsy who said Tiger was marginally better then Levin and Sabbatini. Comparing to Tiger is THE point. His career is the yardstick of modern golf. No matter how much it seems some people would like it, his career did not reset after the scandal. His past accomplishments are completely relevent when comparing him to other players.

Always spot on Johnnymarlboro.

@DCgolf

I was just trying to bring into clearer view for you that, yes, what wulsy said is really off the mark
and that your eyes, though slightly aging a bit, are not playing tricks on you. Thought I would help
wulsy do a check up from the neck up with some reality.

@ conkanen

The reason I brought up the majors was to give wulsy further proof that his claim that Sabbatini is
a great player is a faulty one and to say that Tiger is only marginally better than Sabbatini and Levin
is absurd.

 

[curtisj76]

Most fun I've had watching golf in a long time. Keep in mind he very likely would have still won the tournament with par on 16.

I disagree. You better believe that shot was heard by every remaining golfer on the course. There's only one golfer in the world EVER to make that kind of noise from the crowd. They knew it was Tiger and I guarantee it got in there heads a bit.

 

[curtisj76]

If you have to hole absurd lucky shots to win a tournament then you are good, but not great. How anyone can regard that pitch-in at 16 as anything other than hit and hope is beyond me. It was a fluke, but a fluke that only a highly skilled golf with a particular freaky mindset could pull off. OK, he is playing fairly well again, but not much better than Spencer Levin. Is he great? What about that other golfing great, yes Rory Sabatini. Tiger was marginally better than those two and won because of a lucky shot which set him up mentally an brought Sabatini down. Woods is mentally strong again perhaps, but he's not really a great golfer again. JMHO.

Total BS post. You must think Tiger is the luckiest golfer ever to live.

 

[mgranato]

... to reiterate for the haters...

I'd like to know who is on that list.

Don't know if who this is directed to, but I'll be your huckleberry...

Of Tiger's 2 wins, IMO Bay Hill was far more impressive. He was 13 under and won by 5 shots. The guys who finished in the top 10 (in order) that week were...

Graeme McDowell
Ian Poulter
Ryan Moore
Brian Davis
Bubba Watson
Bud Cauley
Kevin Na
Johnson Wagner
Ernie Els

Compare that to yesterday's win, and the guys who were in the top 10 (in order)...

Andres Romero
Rory Sabbatini
Daniel Summerhays
Spencer Levin
Matt Every
Jonathan Byrd
Justin Rose
Greg Owen
Aaron Baddeley
Ryo Ishikawa

Unlike yesterday's top 10, notice that the first group had no Big Break contestants in it.

Any win on the PGA Tour is an accomplishment (a huge accomplishment), but to your point, his win at Bay Hill was more against a better contention of players. The same excitement of his return to greatness was also expressed after that win, only he followed it up with some very mediocre to poor play.

So here we sit... the day after another win, and the same comments are being expressed again. Is he back like he was after Bay Hill, or is he back for real this time?

The haters just wanna know.

 

[OLIVER1]

Maybe it'll transpire thusly:
Tiger wins...everyone says his back...he plays rubbishy for two months or so...all the pundits say it was a false alarm...he wins a major then plays crappy for a 6 month spell...everyone says he stinks again and the major was fortunate...this cycle - or something similar - repeats for the next 6 or 7 years and in that time he puts 5 majors, 20 regular tournaments, 100 squillion dollars, 35 porn stars, a dozen waffle-house waitresses and a partridge in a pear tree on the board and still we're not sure if he's back.
I'm not keen on TIger at all, but you get the feeling that Donald, McIlroy, Watson, Mahan, etc. are just flies buzzing around the elephant; periodic annoyances to be swatted away with a swish of the tail.
He's the best..

 

[magicmarker]

I don't know what "is he back" even means... I know he is winning again and he looks very comfortable doing so. What more can he do than go out and win tournaments? If anyone else in the top ten had won it would have been a HUGE win for their career, instead it is just another non-major Tiger win, aside from tying jack at 73 it was almost meaningless. He is going for the incredible shot, pulling it off, and IGNITING the crowd with gallery-engaging fist pumps. He may not be back, but he sure as sh*t is here.

 

[ms1170]

So here we sit... the day after another win, and the same comments are being expressed again. Is he back like he was after Bay Hill, or is he back for real this time?

The haters just wanna know.

He may not be back to what he was in 2000, but he is back to being better than Donald, Mcillroy, Mickelson, Westwood and Matt Every.

 

[curtisj76]

Don't know if who this is directed to, but I'll be your huckleberry...

Of Tiger's 2 wins, IMO Bay Hill was far more impressive. He was 13 under and won by 5 shots. The guys who finished in the top 10 (in order) that week were...

Graeme McDowell
Ian Poulter
Ryan Moore
Brian Davis
Bubba Watson
Bud Cauley
Kevin Na
Johnson Wagner
Ernie Els

Compare that to yesterday's win, and the guys who were in the top 10 (in order)...

Andres Romero
Rory Sabbatini
Daniel Summerhays
Spencer Levin
Matt Every
Jonathan Byrd
Justin Rose
Greg Owen
Aaron Baddeley
Ryo Ishikawa

Unlike yesterday's top 10, notice that the first group had no Big Break contestants in it.

Any win on the PGA Tour is an accomplishment (a huge accomplishment), but to your point, his win at Bay Hill was more against a better contention of players. The same excitement of his return to greatness was also expressed after that win, only he followed it up with some very mediocre to poor play.

So here we sit... the day after another win, and the same comments are being expressed again. Is he back like he was after Bay Hill, or is he back for real this time?

The haters just wanna know.

Nice try. Just because the top 10 wasn't "stacked" doesn't mean the competition wasn't there. The top 10 that you seem to like so well finished:

Bubba Watson = MC
Ernie Els = +9
Brian Davis = +3
Ryan Moore = +4
Bud Cauley = +7
Kevin Na = MC
Johnson Wagner = +4

This doesn't even mention some of the words greats like Luke Donald, Phil, Rory M, etc.

Face it, the field was stacked and Tiger won it.

 

[conkanen]

He may not be back to what he was in 2000, but he is back to being better than Donald, Mcillroy, Mickelson,

We'll part company right there.

 

[Matt 4-L]

...Face it, the field was stacked and Tiger won it.

Dufner wasn't there