Tiger out at Tour Championship

[jdaniel]

This is clearly a money issue. Tiger and Phil make too much to care about the Tour Championship. It's a 30 player field with a winning prize of $1,170,000, check out those zeros. I understand the whole IC BS; however, this is a slap in the face of Tim Finchem and the PGA Tour.

 

I'm starting to feel the same way about Tiger and Phil as I do about the NBA players, they make so much now why care. Your already making $10,000,000 a year why give back.

 

Go to an NBA game and see if they don't need their batteries charged. In the NBA you never get what you pay for, night in and night out.

 

It's like this, hey so and so NBA player would you like to give 100% in this regular season game against whoever? Why no, don't I get a 8 figure yearly deal regardless.

 

Phil and Tiger are thumbing their nose at the tour and you and I, and saying no I don't want to play against 30 guys to win $1,170,00 for four days. Sorry I already made my 8 figures this year. Sorry PGA Tour.

 

I'm guessing 4 weeks off is not enough to "recharge you batteries" from Ellen and Xbox. Give me a break. Phil is flaky anyhow, I'm sure he is home tending to his small fortune he has amassed.

 

There is no longer a dangling carrot in the NBA or PGA Tour, they all get theres in the end, so why care they say.

 

Well thats the attitude I'm now taking, why care about them.

 

I love golf and would play every day, if given the chance. This does not change my opinion about the game , just the players that thumb their noses at millions and skip the final championship worth $1,170,000.00 to the winner in a short field.

 

And yes I guess Phil and Tiger have done enough for the "Tour" already.

 

I guess my point is don't skip the marque event for the PGA Tour, and then fly off in your private jet to BFE and play there next week, and claim a battery problem.

 

I wonder what would have happened if Jeff Weaver had taken the night off last night, would his teamates and fans though the same of him?

 

In closing the sponsors paid a pretty penny and assumed that the 30 best would show and play for their money, I guess they sould start putting clauses in their own contracts, their not lucky enough to quit to recharge their batteries. They have a contract. I'm calling BS, I think it's fraud. It's been a windfall for players in the modern era, thanks to the sponsors not Phil and Tiger. Like Peter Jacobsen says, we are lucky to be here playing for this money, lets give the fans a show.

 

I love to hear a big tour sponsor pull out and say, sorry we need to recharge our wallets like you are doing. If the top 30 don't show or all have bad backs we are not paying.

[2zlinks]

I think Tiger's 25% Winning percentage is total bs. He is the best player in the modern game but his lack of playing in tournaments that he is not required to or a major definately stacks his stats in his favor.

 

:) He plays in all of the top level tournaments, which, in general have stronger fields. You think those along with majors are easier to win than the John Deere, or Texas Open at La Who Really Cares?

[csiachos]

I think he and Phil are doing the tour a disservice by not playing. I believe it should be a requirement for all players who qualify for this Championship to attend, that is, of course, not in case of emergency and such. It is ridiculous that they need recharging. Bull____! You fill in the blank. If players keep bailing out of events like the Tour Champ., which rely on the big names because of the qualifications for invitation, the whole mystique and excitement of the best players facing each other at the end of the year is removed. I think it sucks royally, and that's not just because I'm going on Tues. and Weds.

[golfclubber]

100% AGREE

[bopper53]

After speaking with a very well know swing coach that will remain nameless, he commented that the top American PGA Tour Players like Tiger and Phil are just plain spoiled period !.

 

Because of their talent, These guys never had to travel the mini tours by car, driving all night and barely making the tee time for a much needed paycheck to support the family back home. Maybe they should have been made to experience that to appreciate everything they have now.

 

How in the world can Tiger be tired when he travels by private jet, sleeps in the finest hotels, eats the best food and is picked up by a limo or courtesy car everywhere he goes.

 

He does not have to wade through a crowded airports and put up with ill tempered customers every week just to earn a living for his family. Then arrive home to make time for the family, pay the mortgage and then hope to play some golf on a weekend morning with his buddies before he has to do it all over again the next week.

 

He has a God given talent to play this game and earn an unbelievable living which provides him a Swedish bikini model wife, a 23 million dollar yacht, a 40 million dollar mansion. Above that he has a very well trained highly paid management team that takes care of his every need.

 

So don't tell me he is exhausted and just can't bring himself to play another golf tournament for a million bucks.

 

I want to be that tired, just once! :)

[b-man777]

hey guys:i totally agree with kix and mr.pinchy in that players aren't forced to play week in and week out except for the minimum 15 events a year.the top 10 or 15 players in the world rankings have done well enough to be able to skip more events than players that are farther down the list.i will say this tiger has helped the tour alot by forcing all the players to elevate their game and bringing alot more sponsorship money to the tour,but what this has created is a few guys out there making so much money that they can skip even some so called bigger events like the tour champs and mercedes champs.finally with the demands tiger has on and off the course witch are more than most if not all other pro's i can see why he skips more events even though he's very fun to watch.just my $1.25 worth :)

[MR.PINCHY]

Because of their talent, These guys never had to travel the mini tours by car, driving all night and barely making the tee time for a much needed paycheck to support the family back home. Maybe they should have been made to experience that to appreciate everything they have now.

 

so you're saying talent determines everything??

 

IMO, to maximize your potential/talent, you need SOME practice...

 

im pretty sure Tiger, and other top players in the world PRACTICED THE HECK outta themselves when they were kids..probably more than average touring pros...

 

so if you're saying their talent gave them the fortune, i think you're mistaken..

[sergizmo]

This is simple; Tiger is resting up for his appearance-fee money grabs in China (HSBC) and Japan (Dunlop). He is not tired now, all he's been doing is promoting TW'07 for a month. Unless that appearance on Ellen was mentally exhausting...

[MR_SHELDON_UK]

Use really need to think about things i bet there is some really good golfers on here that are annoyed that they cant sit and home and watch tiger play. he practices more than most guys on tour he lost his father and all use are complain about how much money he earns BS. 1) he gives back he has his own learning centre how many of you guys would have your own learning centre instead of another house in the bahamas or 7 more cars none of use. ok hes missing the season ending event so want hes killing the money list and when hes played this year and hes been on his game no1 could catch him hes even played on a b game and won events hes an unbelieveable golfer and we shoudl be happy where in his era

 

And for phil hes a joke he watchs nfl instead of playing hes not tired he just misses it so he can watch football and you are all slating tiger tiger will still be hitting balls and come out flying nxt yr phil mght pick up the new callaway swing it about for 10 minutes and say yeh its ok the go off to watch some more football its a joke

 

except tiger probably has an excuse and played 7 times in a row or wotever to be honest thats massve for tiger and 2 majors ogilvy missed off a few weeks after his so think tigers had 2 this yr and still played few weeks after

[SwooshLT]

Because of their talent, These guys never had to travel the mini tours by car, driving all night and barely making the tee time for a much needed paycheck to support the family back home. Maybe they should have been made to experience that to appreciate everything they have now.

 

so you're saying talent determines everything??

 

IMO, to maximize your potential/talent, you need SOME practice...

 

im pretty sure Tiger, and other top players in the world PRACTICED THE HECK outta themselves when they were kids..probably more than average touring pros...

 

so if you're saying their talent gave them the fortune, i think you're mistaken..

 

 

exactly, they roll out of bed and win a tourney................ :) stop it!!!

 

Guys there are like what 5,000 Professional athletes in this country of 300,000,000 million which is a extremely small percentage of people making large sums of money to do what we love to do(football,baseball,golf etc) we can't them they owe us a d$%n thing!!

[golfer_junior]

I think Tiger's 25% Winning percentage is total bs. He is the best player in the modern game but his lack of playing in tournaments that he is not required to or a major definately stacks his stats in his favor.

 

:) He plays in all of the top level tournaments, which, in general have stronger fields. You think those along with majors are easier to win than the John Deere, or Texas Open at La Who Really Cares?

Let me put this simpler, Tiger plays when he has to and at his favorite tournaments. Is that enough to justify all the praise he has recieved for a 25% winning percentage? Not in my book, I have to say he is one of if not the greatest player in the history of golf, but he needs to play more tournaments. 15 out of what 40 dosen't cut it. He need to play at least 2/3 with the kind of money he makes.

[2zlinks]

I think Tiger's 25% Winning percentage is total bs. He is the best player in the modern game but his lack of playing in tournaments that he is not required to or a major definately stacks his stats in his favor.

 

:) He plays in all of the top level tournaments, which, in general have stronger fields. You think those along with majors are easier to win than the John Deere, or Texas Open at La Who Really Cares?

Let me put this simpler, Tiger plays when he has to and at his favorite tournaments. Is that enough to justify all the praise he has recieved for a 25% winning percentage? Not in my book, I have to say he is one of if not the greatest player in the history of golf, but he needs to play more tournaments. 15 out of what 40 dosen't cut it. He need to play at least 2/3 with the kind of money he makes.

Funny, but the tournaments he plays in are the better ones that have a tougher field. That fact alone makes his +25 winning percentage all the more impressive. The money he makes? Are you talking about tournament winnings, or from his sponsorships? He is THE reason the tour is playing for as much as they are today, if your talking about sponsorships I would bet his sponsors aren't complaining. You mention that he needs to play in 2 out of every 3 tournaments (I'm assuming thats what you mean by 2/3) there are only a handfull of guys that play that much and nobody in the top 10 is close, with Vijah at 25 out of 47.

[toddnt]

Hey guys/gals, lets take it easy..Most of or allof us are over eighteen years old and can do as we please. Tiger isnt paying any of us, so whats up with the negative comments..Independent Contractor.

[nikemike]

It's funny that the same folks who complain about seeing too much Tiger are now complaining about him not playing the Tour Championship. I guess some folks need something to constantly complain about :)

[sandy]

Probably just a matter of trying to balance his schedule and yes his schedule is "tiring". Having been involved with a lot of his connection with Buick I can personally tell you the demands on his time are unbelievable. We used to joke at the highest corporate levels (not annecdotal but from personal experience) you virtually needed to schedule time for the "crapper" just because of the daily schedule/meetings. Tiger's schedule makes a corporate executives look easy. My opinion is that he doesn't say NO enough--which in part is his fault as well as his advisors/handlers. Everyone can speculate about what a "wonderful" life he leads but I can tell you from personal contact with him and his daily grind I wouldn't take it or want it.

 

Don't forget in all of this that he played more consecutive weeks this year than he ever has as a professional. Everybody still forgets in all of this that in spite of his physical fitness regimen he still has had 2 significant knee surgeries on the same knee before the age of 30. He really wants to avoid a 3rd. As it stands now he is headed for some pretty painfull arthritis on that joint down the road, since even he can't regrow cartilage.

 

I laugh at how many actually take it personally that Tiger is not playing in this or any other tournament and they are outraged---how dare he let them down, let the PGA down, etc. etc. He hardly is letting the PGA down ask Phil, Ernie etc. who have repeatedly commented on who is directly responsible for the purses they are playing for today. Probably some of the same people who complain about the excessive coverage he gets when he does play.

[golfer_junior]

I think Tiger's 25% Winning percentage is total bs. He is the best player in the modern game but his lack of playing in tournaments that he is not required to or a major definately stacks his stats in his favor.

 

:) He plays in all of the top level tournaments, which, in general have stronger fields. You think those along with majors are easier to win than the John Deere, or Texas Open at La Who Really Cares?

Let me put this simpler, Tiger plays when he has to and at his favorite tournaments. Is that enough to justify all the praise he has recieved for a 25% winning percentage? Not in my book, I have to say he is one of if not the greatest player in the history of golf, but he needs to play more tournaments. 15 out of what 40 dosen't cut it. He need to play at least 2/3 with the kind of money he makes.

Funny, but the tournaments he plays in are the better ones that have a tougher field. That fact alone makes his +25 winning percentage all the more impressive. The money he makes? Are you talking about tournament winnings, or from his sponsorships? He is THE reason the tour is playing for as much as they are today, if your talking about sponsorships I would bet his sponsors aren't complaining. You mention that he needs to play in 2 out of every 3 tournaments (I'm assuming thats what you mean by 2/3) there are only a handfull of guys that play that much and nobody in the top 10 is close, with Vijah at 25 out of 47.

They have a tougher field because everyone wants to play against him, or its a major championship. Where his money comes from dosen't matter, he may be responsible for much of the increased purse sizes but he hasn't earned the right to take everything given to him by the supporters of golf without paying them back by playing in more tournaments. If it weren't for us, he would be a nobody and he needs to remember that.

[fsmith84]

I think Tiger's 25% Winning percentage is total bs. He is the best player in the modern game but his lack of playing in tournaments that he is not required to or a major definately stacks his stats in his favor.

 

:) He plays in all of the top level tournaments, which, in general have stronger fields. You think those along with majors are easier to win than the John Deere, or Texas Open at La Who Really Cares?

Let me put this simpler, Tiger plays when he has to and at his favorite tournaments. Is that enough to justify all the praise he has recieved for a 25% winning percentage? Not in my book, I have to say he is one of if not the greatest player in the history of golf, but he needs to play more tournaments. 15 out of what 40 dosen't cut it. He need to play at least 2/3 with the kind of money he makes.

Funny, but the tournaments he plays in are the better ones that have a tougher field. That fact alone makes his +25 winning percentage all the more impressive. The money he makes? Are you talking about tournament winnings, or from his sponsorships? He is THE reason the tour is playing for as much as they are today, if your talking about sponsorships I would bet his sponsors aren't complaining. You mention that he needs to play in 2 out of every 3 tournaments (I'm assuming thats what you mean by 2/3) there are only a handfull of guys that play that much and nobody in the top 10 is close, with Vijah at 25 out of 47.

They have a tougher field because everyone wants to play against him, or its a major championship. Where his money comes from dosen't matter, he may be responsible for much of the increased purse sizes but he hasn't earned the right to take everything given to him by the supporters of golf without paying them back by playing in more tournaments. If it weren't for us, he would be a nobody and he needs to remember that.

 

Golfer_junior:

 

I think you make a good point in your myriad of arguments, especially about Tiger being a nobody if it weren't for all the people who pay to watch him play. But that's the nature in any walk of life. Blast Tiger for not playing more, but he's changed the game enough that he doesn't HAVE to play as many times as you, I or anyone else thinks he should. Let's look at it this way: he'll play 5 less tournaments (at LEAST) than the #2 on the money list this year, and still outearn him by a few million dollars. Do you blast him for playing fewer events, or do you recognize his greatness in the fact that he DOESN'T NEED to play as many times as others to win more tournaments and money? Do you blast a football team that pulls its star quarterback with a 30-0 lead in the 4th quarter because he doesn't go all the way? Probably not. The same principle applies here. Tiger is in charge of what he wants to do, and he alone. In this way, I disagree with you wholeheartedly on your speech about Tiger's winning percentage. You're telling me he would be more dominant with three more wins maybe at the JDC, the Frys.com and the 84 Lumber, even if those three tournaments cost him maybe a more meaningful title at Doral, or worse, a major in the long run, simply because he should play more? That's ridiculous.

 

The short and sweet of it is that when you create the standard, you can manipulate it however you like. Not that you should, but you can, and there is a huge difference in those two words. Look at our current government for a perfect example. But I digress...

 

Cordially,

FS

[golfer_junior]

I think Tiger's 25% Winning percentage is total bs. He is the best player in the modern game but his lack of playing in tournaments that he is not required to or a major definately stacks his stats in his favor.

 

:) He plays in all of the top level tournaments, which, in general have stronger fields. You think those along with majors are easier to win than the John Deere, or Texas Open at La Who Really Cares?

Let me put this simpler, Tiger plays when he has to and at his favorite tournaments. Is that enough to justify all the praise he has recieved for a 25% winning percentage? Not in my book, I have to say he is one of if not the greatest player in the history of golf, but he needs to play more tournaments. 15 out of what 40 dosen't cut it. He need to play at least 2/3 with the kind of money he makes.

Funny, but the tournaments he plays in are the better ones that have a tougher field. That fact alone makes his +25 winning percentage all the more impressive. The money he makes? Are you talking about tournament winnings, or from his sponsorships? He is THE reason the tour is playing for as much as they are today, if your talking about sponsorships I would bet his sponsors aren't complaining. You mention that he needs to play in 2 out of every 3 tournaments (I'm assuming thats what you mean by 2/3) there are only a handfull of guys that play that much and nobody in the top 10 is close, with Vijah at 25 out of 47.

They have a tougher field because everyone wants to play against him, or its a major championship. Where his money comes from dosen't matter, he may be responsible for much of the increased purse sizes but he hasn't earned the right to take everything given to him by the supporters of golf without paying them back by playing in more tournaments. If it weren't for us, he would be a nobody and he needs to remember that.

 

Golfer_junior:

 

I think you make a good point in your myriad of arguments, especially about Tiger being a nobody if it weren't for all the people who pay to watch him play. But that's the nature in any walk of life. Blast Tiger for not playing more, but he's changed the game enough that he doesn't HAVE to play as many times as you, I or anyone else thinks he should. Let's look at it this way: he'll play 5 less tournaments (at LEAST) than the #2 on the money list this year, and still outearn him by a few million dollars. Do you blast him for playing fewer events, or do you recognize his greatness in the fact that he DOESN'T NEED to play as many times as others to win more tournaments and money? Do you blast a football team that pulls its star quarterback with a 30-0 lead in the 4th quarter because he doesn't go all the way? Probably not. The same principle applies here. Tiger is in charge of what he wants to do, and he alone. In this way, I disagree with you wholeheartedly on your speech about Tiger's winning percentage. You're telling me he would be more dominant with three more wins maybe at the JDC, the Frys.com and the 84 Lumber, even if those three tournaments cost him maybe a more meaningful title at Doral, or worse, a major in the long run, simply because he should play more? That's ridiculous.

 

The short and sweet of it is that when you create the standard, you can manipulate it however you like. Not that you should, but you can, and there is a huge difference in those two words. Look at our current government for a perfect example. But I digress...

 

Cordially,

FS

I'm not sure what you are referring to as the "standard", but creating a standard has nothing to do with commitment to the people who are responsible for your wealth. And watch your coments on the Bush administration for your sake.

 

You say that you don't have to pay your respects to those who paved the road that allowed you to reach the point where you can start to build your road to success, this is true but not ethical. This is one reason why History is important, which many liberal democrats (such as yourself if my analysis is correct) fail to realize.

 

I recognize his riches as a function of both his greatness, and his good fortune. However this should be even more of a reason for him to play as many tournaments as possible. The point shouldn't be to win certain events, but to win as many as possible. I would almost go as far as to say that he dosen't appreciate everything that the golfing public has done since the invention of the game. Hell if it weren't for my Great Uncle he would most likely still be playing wound golf balls.

 

Your analogy to pulling a QB when the team is up 30-0 in the 4th quarter isn't quite accurate enough. It would more be like only playing that QB in the big games and have him practice daily in between games.

 

I say that I would respect Tiger much more as a person if he played in 30 tournaments each year and won 10% verses his 10-15 tournaments with a 25% of them resulting in wins, though he would probly still win close to 25% anyways.

 

Anyways, I'm going to dinner

 

Later

[cleatsupkeep]

Tiger is the #1 golfer in the world.

 

Anyone who is the BEST in the WORLD at ANYTHING, won't have to put in all of the hours that someone struggling to make a living will.

 

I am pointing to a TV show here, but look at House, he is one of the smartest doctors (and if real, would be one of the best doctors in the world). He gets the privelege to get the best people working for him (Haney, Williams, etc.) He gets to only take ONE patient at a time, and gets to choose his own patients, not like the many doctors working who take whoever comes in.

 

If you are the best at something, you get the benefits, and choosing what you do is one of the benefits.

[golfer_junior]

Tiger is the #1 golfer in the world.

 

Anyone who is the BEST in the WORLD at ANYTHING, won't have to put in all of the hours that someone struggling to make a living will.

 

I am pointing to a TV show here, but look at House, he is one of the smartest doctors (and if real, would be one of the best doctors in the world). He gets the privelege to get the best people working for him (Haney, Williams, etc.) He gets to only take ONE patient at a time, and gets to choose his own patients, not like the many doctors working who take whoever comes in.

 

If you are the best at something, you get the benefits, and choosing what you do is one of the benefits.

House makes his money saving people's life, Tiger makes his money playing a GAME for people to watch and by being endorsed by different companies because of how well he plays this GAME. Plus House has Clinic duty... enough said...

[Bennettgolf]

I speak for myself and probably for most others in that, i would much rather watch tiger play his best less times than see him try and play more tournaments and become worn out and not play as well. Quality not quantity is what you want from a guy like tiger. just my 2 cents.

[fsmith84]

I think Tiger's 25% Winning percentage is total bs. He is the best player in the modern game but his lack of playing in tournaments that he is not required to or a major definately stacks his stats in his favor.

 

:) He plays in all of the top level tournaments, which, in general have stronger fields. You think those along with majors are easier to win than the John Deere, or Texas Open at La Who Really Cares?

Let me put this simpler, Tiger plays when he has to and at his favorite tournaments. Is that enough to justify all the praise he has recieved for a 25% winning percentage? Not in my book, I have to say he is one of if not the greatest player in the history of golf, but he needs to play more tournaments. 15 out of what 40 dosen't cut it. He need to play at least 2/3 with the kind of money he makes.

Funny, but the tournaments he plays in are the better ones that have a tougher field. That fact alone makes his +25 winning percentage all the more impressive. The money he makes? Are you talking about tournament winnings, or from his sponsorships? He is THE reason the tour is playing for as much as they are today, if your talking about sponsorships I would bet his sponsors aren't complaining. You mention that he needs to play in 2 out of every 3 tournaments (I'm assuming thats what you mean by 2/3) there are only a handfull of guys that play that much and nobody in the top 10 is close, with Vijah at 25 out of 47.

They have a tougher field because everyone wants to play against him, or its a major championship. Where his money comes from dosen't matter, he may be responsible for much of the increased purse sizes but he hasn't earned the right to take everything given to him by the supporters of golf without paying them back by playing in more tournaments. If it weren't for us, he would be a nobody and he needs to remember that.

 

Golfer_junior:

 

I think you make a good point in your myriad of arguments, especially about Tiger being a nobody if it weren't for all the people who pay to watch him play. But that's the nature in any walk of life. Blast Tiger for not playing more, but he's changed the game enough that he doesn't HAVE to play as many times as you, I or anyone else thinks he should. Let's look at it this way: he'll play 5 less tournaments (at LEAST) than the #2 on the money list this year, and still outearn him by a few million dollars. Do you blast him for playing fewer events, or do you recognize his greatness in the fact that he DOESN'T NEED to play as many times as others to win more tournaments and money? Do you blast a football team that pulls its star quarterback with a 30-0 lead in the 4th quarter because he doesn't go all the way? Probably not. The same principle applies here. Tiger is in charge of what he wants to do, and he alone. In this way, I disagree with you wholeheartedly on your speech about Tiger's winning percentage. You're telling me he would be more dominant with three more wins maybe at the JDC, the Frys.com and the 84 Lumber, even if those three tournaments cost him maybe a more meaningful title at Doral, or worse, a major in the long run, simply because he should play more? That's ridiculous.

 

The short and sweet of it is that when you create the standard, you can manipulate it however you like. Not that you should, but you can, and there is a huge difference in those two words. Look at our current government for a perfect example. But I digress...

 

Cordially,

FS

I'm not sure what you are referring to as the "standard", but creating a standard has nothing to do with commitment to the people who are responsible for your wealth. And watch your coments on the Bush administration for your sake.

 

You say that you don't have to pay your respects to those who paved the road that allowed you to reach the point where you can start to build your road to success, this is true but not ethical. This is one reason why History is important, which many liberal democrats (such as yourself if my analysis is correct) fail to realize.

 

I recognize his riches as a function of both his greatness, and his good fortune. However this should be even more of a reason for him to play as many tournaments as possible. The point shouldn't be to win certain events, but to win as many as possible. I would almost go as far as to say that he dosen't appreciate everything that the golfing public has done since the invention of the game. Hell if it weren't for my Great Uncle he would most likely still be playing wound golf balls.

 

Your analogy to pulling a QB when the team is up 30-0 in the 4th quarter isn't quite accurate enough. It would more be like only playing that QB in the big games and have him practice daily in between games.

 

I say that I would respect Tiger much more as a person if he played in 30 tournaments each year and won 10% verses his 10-15 tournaments with a 25% of them resulting in wins, though he would probly still win close to 25% anyways.

 

Anyways, I'm going to dinner

 

Later

 

I study history AND politics, so don't mistake me in thinking I don't care about history. While your analysis in that I'm a liberal is correct, it's a bit irrelevant in this case, as are my musings about the Bush abomination - this is better served in a PM if you really care to discuss it.

 

I will say I agree with you on your points of success vs. ethics. Should Tiger play? Yes, he should-it's the tour's showcase, and he should appreciate it. I'll agree with you on this as far as ethics, but this argument can be made for every player. Just the same way that Phil should play in the Mercedes, and any other tournament he skips, but this is not about Phil. Tiger doesn't need to play, and he won't. The point is that for the vast majority of the year, Tiger is the only player who can generate coverage when he doesn't play. We don't have this discussion whenever Fred Couples decides to skip a week, despite the fact that Fred has one of the biggest fan bases in the game, myself included. Freddy is one of the biggest reapers of Tiger's benefits that he's brought to the tour-namely that (until next year) golf was almost a year round sport due to the Silly Season. Even though Fred has made more money in Silly Season events than in normal events, he still plays quite a bit in the country's "winter," nearly as often as he does on the normal tour. Should he be chastized for not committing himself more to the normal tour? Probably, according to your argument. But he plays when it counts, and so does Tiger. As has been stated before, they are independent contractors and can do what they please.

 

Also, as far as the quarterback analogy, I'd say it's strangely appropriate. If Peyton Manning misses most of the week, but still wants to start on Sunday, he's under the center's butt on Sunday. Why? Because he's Peyton Manning. Tiger is Tiger. The tour is still on page 6 of your local daily if he's not playing, either this week or if he'd never come along. That's just how it is.

 

Finally, you state that Tiger's ability should give him the desire to go out every week and win every tournament there is. You state: "The point shouldn't be to win certain events, but to win as many as possible."

 

I read clearly that you think that Tiger's goal is to win only "title" tournaments, not a certain number. This is flat out wrong.

 

Yes, Tiger does want to win a major over the 84 Lumber, but if he wins enough of them (and so far, he has, does and will probably continue to do), he's still going to win more than anyone in our history. As you said so yourself, history IS important. And history will show that not only did Tiger win more than anyone, but he won more of the tournaments that matter than anyone. In this way, Tiger will have not only won certain events, but the best events, and more time than anyone in history. This is consistent with the rhetoric we use to define golfing greatness. Where, in history, did it show that Hogan, Jones, etc. won? Does it catalog their trips to podunk Iowa for the Buck Creek Open? Did it catalog how many times Nicklaus played in Pigsknuckle, Ark? The answers are no. It catalogs the 63 at Oakmont. It catalogs the Grand Slam. It catalogs the tournaments that matter, at the places that matter. That's how Tiger has designed his game, and that's how history has said it matters. Tiger has a greater knowledge of golf history than you or I combined, therefore neither of us have any clout in criticizing him.

 

You make good initial arguments, but I'm pretty sure history isn't on your side.

 

FS

[AcesAZ]

I'm surprised no one figured out why Tigers not playing?

 

It's no secret he doesn't play well at East Lake (only win in 99') so he is skipping this tournament in favor of the streak(He is scared :) ). He is shooting for Nelsons record of 11 straight victories.

[golfer_junior]

I think Tiger's 25% Winning percentage is total bs. He is the best player in the modern game but his lack of playing in tournaments that he is not required to or a major definately stacks his stats in his favor.

 

:) He plays in all of the top level tournaments, which, in general have stronger fields. You think those along with majors are easier to win than the John Deere, or Texas Open at La Who Really Cares?

Let me put this simpler, Tiger plays when he has to and at his favorite tournaments. Is that enough to justify all the praise he has recieved for a 25% winning percentage? Not in my book, I have to say he is one of if not the greatest player in the history of golf, but he needs to play more tournaments. 15 out of what 40 dosen't cut it. He need to play at least 2/3 with the kind of money he makes.

Funny, but the tournaments he plays in are the better ones that have a tougher field. That fact alone makes his +25 winning percentage all the more impressive. The money he makes? Are you talking about tournament winnings, or from his sponsorships? He is THE reason the tour is playing for as much as they are today, if your talking about sponsorships I would bet his sponsors aren't complaining. You mention that he needs to play in 2 out of every 3 tournaments (I'm assuming thats what you mean by 2/3) there are only a handfull of guys that play that much and nobody in the top 10 is close, with Vijah at 25 out of 47.

They have a tougher field because everyone wants to play against him, or its a major championship. Where his money comes from dosen't matter, he may be responsible for much of the increased purse sizes but he hasn't earned the right to take everything given to him by the supporters of golf without paying them back by playing in more tournaments. If it weren't for us, he would be a nobody and he needs to remember that.

 

Golfer_junior:

 

I think you make a good point in your myriad of arguments, especially about Tiger being a nobody if it weren't for all the people who pay to watch him play. But that's the nature in any walk of life. Blast Tiger for not playing more, but he's changed the game enough that he doesn't HAVE to play as many times as you, I or anyone else thinks he should. Let's look at it this way: he'll play 5 less tournaments (at LEAST) than the #2 on the money list this year, and still outearn him by a few million dollars. Do you blast him for playing fewer events, or do you recognize his greatness in the fact that he DOESN'T NEED to play as many times as others to win more tournaments and money? Do you blast a football team that pulls its star quarterback with a 30-0 lead in the 4th quarter because he doesn't go all the way? Probably not. The same principle applies here. Tiger is in charge of what he wants to do, and he alone. In this way, I disagree with you wholeheartedly on your speech about Tiger's winning percentage. You're telling me he would be more dominant with three more wins maybe at the JDC, the Frys.com and the 84 Lumber, even if those three tournaments cost him maybe a more meaningful title at Doral, or worse, a major in the long run, simply because he should play more? That's ridiculous.

 

The short and sweet of it is that when you create the standard, you can manipulate it however you like. Not that you should, but you can, and there is a huge difference in those two words. Look at our current government for a perfect example. But I digress...

 

Cordially,

FS

I'm not sure what you are referring to as the "standard", but creating a standard has nothing to do with commitment to the people who are responsible for your wealth. And watch your coments on the Bush administration for your sake.

 

You say that you don't have to pay your respects to those who paved the road that allowed you to reach the point where you can start to build your road to success, this is true but not ethical. This is one reason why History is important, which many liberal democrats (such as yourself if my analysis is correct) fail to realize.

 

I recognize his riches as a function of both his greatness, and his good fortune. However this should be even more of a reason for him to play as many tournaments as possible. The point shouldn't be to win certain events, but to win as many as possible. I would almost go as far as to say that he dosen't appreciate everything that the golfing public has done since the invention of the game. Hell if it weren't for my Great Uncle he would most likely still be playing wound golf balls (as would the rest of us).

 

Your analogy to pulling a QB when the team is up 30-0 in the 4th quarter isn't quite accurate enough. It would more be like only playing that QB in the big games and have him practice daily in between games.

 

I say that I would respect Tiger much more as a person if he played in 30 tournaments each year and won 10% verses his 10-15 tournaments with a 25% of them resulting in wins, though he would probly still win close to 25% anyways.

 

Anyways, I'm going to dinner

 

Later

 

I study history AND politics, so don't mistake me in thinking I don't care about history. While your analysis in that I'm a liberal is correct, it's a bit irrelevant in this case, as are my musings about the Bush abomination - this is better served in a PM if you really care to discuss it.

 

I will say I agree with you on your points of success vs. ethics. Should Tiger play? Yes, he should-it's the tour's showcase, and he should appreciate it. I'll agree with you on this as far as ethics, but this argument can be made for every player. Just the same way that Phil should play in the Mercedes, and any other tournament he skips, but this is not about Phil. Tiger doesn't need to play, and he won't. The point is that for the vast majority of the year, Tiger is the only player who can generate coverage when he doesn't play. We don't have this discussion whenever Fred Couples decides to skip a week, despite the fact that Fred has one of the biggest fan bases in the game, myself included. Freddy is one of the biggest reapers of Tiger's benefits that he's brought to the tour-namely that (until next year) golf was almost a year round sport due to the Silly Season. Even though Fred has made more money in Silly Season events than in normal events, he still plays quite a bit in the country's "winter," nearly as often as he does on the normal tour. Should he be chastized for not committing himself more to the normal tour? Probably, according to your argument. But he plays when it counts, and so does Tiger. As has been stated before, they are independent contractors and can do what they please.

 

Also, as far as the quarterback analogy, I'd say it's strangely appropriate. If Peyton Manning misses most of the week, but still wants to start on Sunday, he's under the center's butt on Sunday. Why? Because he's Peyton Manning. Tiger is Tiger. The tour is still on page 6 of your local daily if he's not playing, either this week or if he'd never come along. That's just how it is.

 

Finally, you state that Tiger's ability should give him the desire to go out every week and win every tournament there is. You state: "The point shouldn't be to win certain events, but to win as many as possible."

 

I read clearly that you think that Tiger's goal is to win only "title" tournaments, not a certain number. This is flat out wrong.

 

Yes, Tiger does want to win a major over the 84 Lumber, but if he wins enough of them (and so far, he has, does and will probably continue to do), he's still going to win more than anyone in our history. As you said so yourself, history IS important. And history will show that not only did Tiger win more than anyone, but he won more of the tournaments that matter than anyone. In this way, Tiger will have not only won certain events, but the best events, and more time than anyone in history. This is consistent with the rhetoric we use to define golfing greatness. Where, in history, did it show that Hogan, Jones, etc. won? Does it catalog their trips to podunk Iowa for the Buck Creek Open? Did it catalog how many times Nicklaus played in Pigsknuckle, Ark? The answers are no. It catalogs the 63 at Oakmont. It catalogs the Grand Slam. It catalogs the tournaments that matter, at the places that matter. That's how Tiger has designed his game, and that's how history has said it matters. Tiger has a greater knowledge of golf history than you or I combined, therefore neither of us have any clout in criticizing him.

 

You make good initial arguments, but I'm pretty sure history isn't on your side.

 

FS

My use of History was narrowed to that which allowed for the playing of the Modern game of golf (and I am not saying Tiger is or will not be part of history). WE can widen the spectrum of hitory to include the future. What is more impressive: 80 wins with 20 majors or 130 wins with 18 majors? I choose the later and I believe you would be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees.

 

Also, I said Tiger's goal should be to win as many was possible rather than to win only title events ("The point shouldn't be to win certain events, but to win as many as possible. ") Tiger is seeking immortality (which he has achieved) and ethically he should pay tribute to those who have aided his progress. Tiger should serve the golfing community not his selfish desire to be the greatest ever (I am not accusing him of being selfish just hypothesizing).

 

So this all comes down to the questions: What is more important? The Individual or the Community? Ones personal gain or improving the quality of life of the community? Should one serve his own desires or that which he views as the ones that will best serve the community? This is why Bush will go down in History as one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States of America.

 

I have to go now but I will ask you one question that will show you who really follows history to determine (spelling?) the futures path:

 

 

Who supports the idea of a Socialist government?

 

History is on my side... good thing I'll never take your history class...

[PMoretz]

It's just hard imagine that, if something like the Tour Championship had been around when they were in their prime, Arnie, Jack, Player, Hogan or Snead skipping the tourney for just about ANY reason. The Big Three must be shaking their heads...

[fsmith84]

I think Tiger's 25% Winning percentage is total bs. He is the best player in the modern game but his lack of playing in tournaments that he is not required to or a major definately stacks his stats in his favor.

 

:) He plays in all of the top level tournaments, which, in general have stronger fields. You think those along with majors are easier to win than the John Deere, or Texas Open at La Who Really Cares?

Let me put this simpler, Tiger plays when he has to and at his favorite tournaments. Is that enough to justify all the praise he has recieved for a 25% winning percentage? Not in my book, I have to say he is one of if not the greatest player in the history of golf, but he needs to play more tournaments. 15 out of what 40 dosen't cut it. He need to play at least 2/3 with the kind of money he makes.

Funny, but the tournaments he plays in are the better ones that have a tougher field. That fact alone makes his +25 winning percentage all the more impressive. The money he makes? Are you talking about tournament winnings, or from his sponsorships? He is THE reason the tour is playing for as much as they are today, if your talking about sponsorships I would bet his sponsors aren't complaining. You mention that he needs to play in 2 out of every 3 tournaments (I'm assuming thats what you mean by 2/3) there are only a handfull of guys that play that much and nobody in the top 10 is close, with Vijah at 25 out of 47.

They have a tougher field because everyone wants to play against him, or its a major championship. Where his money comes from dosen't matter, he may be responsible for much of the increased purse sizes but he hasn't earned the right to take everything given to him by the supporters of golf without paying them back by playing in more tournaments. If it weren't for us, he would be a nobody and he needs to remember that.

 

Golfer_junior:

 

I think you make a good point in your myriad of arguments, especially about Tiger being a nobody if it weren't for all the people who pay to watch him play. But that's the nature in any walk of life. Blast Tiger for not playing more, but he's changed the game enough that he doesn't HAVE to play as many times as you, I or anyone else thinks he should. Let's look at it this way: he'll play 5 less tournaments (at LEAST) than the #2 on the money list this year, and still outearn him by a few million dollars. Do you blast him for playing fewer events, or do you recognize his greatness in the fact that he DOESN'T NEED to play as many times as others to win more tournaments and money? Do you blast a football team that pulls its star quarterback with a 30-0 lead in the 4th quarter because he doesn't go all the way? Probably not. The same principle applies here. Tiger is in charge of what he wants to do, and he alone. In this way, I disagree with you wholeheartedly on your speech about Tiger's winning percentage. You're telling me he would be more dominant with three more wins maybe at the JDC, the Frys.com and the 84 Lumber, even if those three tournaments cost him maybe a more meaningful title at Doral, or worse, a major in the long run, simply because he should play more? That's ridiculous.

 

The short and sweet of it is that when you create the standard, you can manipulate it however you like. Not that you should, but you can, and there is a huge difference in those two words. Look at our current government for a perfect example. But I digress...

 

Cordially,

FS

I'm not sure what you are referring to as the "standard", but creating a standard has nothing to do with commitment to the people who are responsible for your wealth. And watch your coments on the Bush administration for your sake.

 

You say that you don't have to pay your respects to those who paved the road that allowed you to reach the point where you can start to build your road to success, this is true but not ethical. This is one reason why History is important, which many liberal democrats (such as yourself if my analysis is correct) fail to realize.

 

I recognize his riches as a function of both his greatness, and his good fortune. However this should be even more of a reason for him to play as many tournaments as possible. The point shouldn't be to win certain events, but to win as many as possible. I would almost go as far as to say that he dosen't appreciate everything that the golfing public has done since the invention of the game. Hell if it weren't for my Great Uncle he would most likely still be playing wound golf balls (as would the rest of us).

 

Your analogy to pulling a QB when the team is up 30-0 in the 4th quarter isn't quite accurate enough. It would more be like only playing that QB in the big games and have him practice daily in between games.

 

I say that I would respect Tiger much more as a person if he played in 30 tournaments each year and won 10% verses his 10-15 tournaments with a 25% of them resulting in wins, though he would probly still win close to 25% anyways.

 

Anyways, I'm going to dinner

 

Later

 

I study history AND politics, so don't mistake me in thinking I don't care about history. While your analysis in that I'm a liberal is correct, it's a bit irrelevant in this case, as are my musings about the Bush abomination - this is better served in a PM if you really care to discuss it.

 

I will say I agree with you on your points of success vs. ethics. Should Tiger play? Yes, he should-it's the tour's showcase, and he should appreciate it. I'll agree with you on this as far as ethics, but this argument can be made for every player. Just the same way that Phil should play in the Mercedes, and any other tournament he skips, but this is not about Phil. Tiger doesn't need to play, and he won't. The point is that for the vast majority of the year, Tiger is the only player who can generate coverage when he doesn't play. We don't have this discussion whenever Fred Couples decides to skip a week, despite the fact that Fred has one of the biggest fan bases in the game, myself included. Freddy is one of the biggest reapers of Tiger's benefits that he's brought to the tour-namely that (until next year) golf was almost a year round sport due to the Silly Season. Even though Fred has made more money in Silly Season events than in normal events, he still plays quite a bit in the country's "winter," nearly as often as he does on the normal tour. Should he be chastized for not committing himself more to the normal tour? Probably, according to your argument. But he plays when it counts, and so does Tiger. As has been stated before, they are independent contractors and can do what they please.

 

Also, as far as the quarterback analogy, I'd say it's strangely appropriate. If Peyton Manning misses most of the week, but still wants to start on Sunday, he's under the center's butt on Sunday. Why? Because he's Peyton Manning. Tiger is Tiger. The tour is still on page 6 of your local daily if he's not playing, either this week or if he'd never come along. That's just how it is.

 

Finally, you state that Tiger's ability should give him the desire to go out every week and win every tournament there is. You state: "The point shouldn't be to win certain events, but to win as many as possible."

 

I read clearly that you think that Tiger's goal is to win only "title" tournaments, not a certain number. This is flat out wrong.

 

Yes, Tiger does want to win a major over the 84 Lumber, but if he wins enough of them (and so far, he has, does and will probably continue to do), he's still going to win more than anyone in our history. As you said so yourself, history IS important. And history will show that not only did Tiger win more than anyone, but he won more of the tournaments that matter than anyone. In this way, Tiger will have not only won certain events, but the best events, and more time than anyone in history. This is consistent with the rhetoric we use to define golfing greatness. Where, in history, did it show that Hogan, Jones, etc. won? Does it catalog their trips to podunk Iowa for the Buck Creek Open? Did it catalog how many times Nicklaus played in Pigsknuckle, Ark? The answers are no. It catalogs the 63 at Oakmont. It catalogs the Grand Slam. It catalogs the tournaments that matter, at the places that matter. That's how Tiger has designed his game, and that's how history has said it matters. Tiger has a greater knowledge of golf history than you or I combined, therefore neither of us have any clout in criticizing him.

 

You make good initial arguments, but I'm pretty sure history isn't on your side.

 

FS

My use of History was narrowed to that which allowed for the playing of the Modern game of golf (and I am not saying Tiger is or will not be part of history). WE can widen the spectrum of hitory to include the future. What is more impressive: 80 wins with 20 majors or 130 wins with 18 majors? I choose the later and I believe you would be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees.

 

Also, I said Tiger's goal should be to win as many was possible rather than to win only title events ("The point shouldn't be to win certain events, but to win as many as possible. ") Tiger is seeking immortality (which he has achieved) and ethically he should pay tribute to those who have aided his progress. Tiger should serve the golfing community not his selfish desire to be the greatest ever (I am not accusing him of being selfish just hypothesizing).

 

So this all comes down to the questions: What is more important? The Individual or the Community? Ones personal gain or improving the quality of life of the community? Should one serve his own desires or that which he views as the ones that will best serve the community? This is why Bush will go down in History as one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States of America.

 

I have to go now but I will ask you one question that will show you who really follows history to determine (spelling?) the futures path:

 

 

Who supports the idea of a Socialist government?

 

History is on my side... good thing I'll never take your history class...

 

For a 16 year old, you're smart. But a bit naive. A Socialist government? Pick your battles, and do it with a President other than Bush, especially when even his own party denounces him...or don't you watch FOX News?

 

Politics are ridiculous talk in a forum about a guy who swings a stick for a living, and I won't talk about them here: as I said, if you really want to talk, go ahead and PM me. Since you haven't, I'll assume you're using the outer forums to show off your brass buttons. I'll withdraw from this argument, and this thread for that matter, only because I don't want to clutter up the forum with political drivel, which you're using as your fuel for arguments against me. I don't mind-I was the same way when I was your age. You'll outgrow it, at least I hope you do.

 

For the record, neither one of us is "right" about Tiger, or both of us are, although you seem so hot-headed about it that I have a feeling you'd rather us both be wrong than give me the pleasure of saying I had a correct answer, despite the fact that a lot of people agree with me. It's not going to make a difference to Tiger though, and that's what the purpose of this thread is. You say 130 wins and 18 majors, and think I would say 80 wins and 20 majors. For the record, I think he'll have more majors than either of those, and right in between on the events, both of which would shatter records. That's the only thing that matters to Tiger.

 

I would get off your jaded high horse, come down here and enjoy it-you're watching history and the view is a lot better down here.

 

FS

[andrewm]

the limited number of tournies that he plays, which have the strongest fields proves how dominant he is.

[Gxgolfer]

Until Tiger achieves world peace, politics will not be part of this discussion. Tiger can do whatever he wants and if people or his Sponsors don't think its right, they can voice their opinions in an attempt to change it. He's not had an easy year. He lost his father and who knows what happens behind the scenes. Could he play more? Sure he could but, that's ultimately his decision.

[mlamar]

I'm surprised no one figured out why Tigers not playing?

 

It's no secret he doesn't play well at East Lake (only win in 99') so he is skipping this tournament in favor of the streak(He is scared :) ). He is shooting for Nelsons record of 11 straight victories.

 

 

T H A N K Y O U .... I'm appalled that no one NOTICED that ... The streak is important to him ... before

the TIGER ERA ends ... He'll own most Records in the BOOK !!! ... NOW that's history

 

Also, TIGER mashes it 110% every Tourney ... Never gives up until the last shot is played ... How many

other players do that ?????????????????????

[PMoretz]

Streak? That streak ended at the HSBC World Match Play...his current streak is 1.