JFlores
Active member
Without being perceived as a racist, for me yes Tiger is really more entertaining and reason being is because he is different. And if I need to explain that, read the part where I am not a racist.
Tiger vs Nicklaus - By Chamblee
jspangs
Well-known member
I will not take it as racist, but it just seems odd, he's out there doing the exact same thing with worse results (right now) and yet people still find him more entertaining. I just don't get it.Without being perceived as a racist, for me yes Tiger is really more entertaining and reason being is because he is different. And if I need to explain that, read the part where I am not a racist.
JFlores
Active member
Its the chase that is intriguing, the questions "Does he still have that one magical run in him?", "Will he ever catch Jack?".................
Evok
Don't worry, Be happy!
Exactly, no one else is out there potentially making history like that. Sure he's not playing amazing right now but it's only his second tournament back and first major so I have plenty of faith he'll still do good things. People think he hasn't done anything in like 5 years but he won 5 times last year haha. Remind me who else did that?
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #55
So I assume you two are both rooted really hard for Rory McIlroy right?
Because he is chasing history in this event and all.
I get the fact that he is a fan favorite. I think its great to have people you root for, but the defense mechanism used over and over is over the top.
Million dollar question...If it turned out he committed armed robbery would you still root for him on the golf course? If not, Why? It wouldnt have an impact on what he does for entertainment on the golf course right? What if the crime was worse? What if it was not as bad? None of those things would change the entertainment value of him on the golf course, therefore it should not change your view?
Everybody has different thresholds that they can withstand. Some want to root for a guy that is nice to fans, seems like a good all around guy, etc. Others dont care as much, but EVERYBODY has a threshold on what they will root for.
Mulligan9111
Go Skers!!
tee one up 4 me
New member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2014
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
- Handicap
- 36
Funny is last year He wins 5 and the talking heads on the tube are still criticizing him. Like him of hate him, he's great for Golf.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #59
Again, Im not telling someone who or who they shouldn't root for. Just that everybody has a threshold.
To give you an example. Mike Vick could shower me with gifts and play for my favorite team. There is no way I could ever root for him because I found his actions disgusting. No reason for me to root for someone that I think is a useless human being. The same can be said for Kobe Bryant. These are my opinions and clearly they have crossed my threshold. I dont root for golfers, but for the story, so I am looking at this a bit different.
Everybody has a threshold, they just happened to be different.
To use another example I will again use Tiger Woods and armed robbery. Lets say he did that to your family. If he served the time you would still root for him on the golf course? Of course you wouldnt. No different person. No different entertainment. But your personal threshold will have changed.
Evok
Don't worry, Be happy!
I totally get it, and agree with you about Vick I absolutely wish him the worst. Guess that pretty much proves your point about thresholds haha like I said I don't think everything Tiger does is ok, it's just some are so quick to jump on the bashing wagon but we all have our opinions and that's fine. He sure does move the needle tho huh? Seems there's this lack of a medium where people who dislike are haters and people who like him are homers hahaha. Your point is a good one tho JB
JFlores
Active member
I don't live in a "what if world" breh. Vick did his time though, Kobe was not found to have rape that girl. I guess my morale compasse is not as high as others. Ehh *shrugs*
jspangs
Well-known member
I don't think there is as much bashing of Tiger as the Tiger lovers think there is. If you like Tiger great cheer for him a lot of people do but don't try and justify it saying he's more entertaining. He does the exact same thing as every other Tour player. He tees up a ball, hits it, hits another, then putts it out. He throws temper tantrums, he seems rude to fans and reporters like he is above them. Not a great role model.
Evok
Don't worry, Be happy!
Everyone is welcome to think what they want. I'll bow out
That's not what happened
zooropa
Well-known member
Some people (and I am making a general statement) prefer to "root" for people they believe they like. Some people prefer to root for people that are down right evil. Others prefer candid and still others prefer robotic.
What does it matter if someone chooses to root against him? I have always wondered this. Why does said Tiger fan care if one guy or another hates his guts because he snubbed a kid for an autograph, was the principle member of #UglyHookerGate or is a sh!tty tipper? If you love the guy for great golf, someone rooting against him shouldn't change that.
People root for golfers and teams for millions of reasons, including "I just want to see great golf" (as long as its not a Tiger rival)
Such a good post. Not sure about the hating his guts part but it is easy to see how people would not think much of him.
JFlores
Active member
Oh I wasn't there in the room, so I'm not 100% sure.
JFlores
Active member
Every other tour player is not chasing a record, competitors throw tantrums. I played college baseball and I been known to throw a helmet or too. At the end of the day people are going to root for whoever, nothing wrong with that.
The accuser decided not to testify and agreed to settle out court in exchange for the criminal changes being dropped.
JFlores
Active member
So she got a payday out of it, innocent until proven guilty no?
jspangs
Well-known member
Every tour player is chasing a record, some are just closer than others. I have no problem with who you cheer for. Tiger brings in casual fans (i have an uncle that only watches when Tiger is in contention) but it doesn't mean every one has to worship the ground he walks on.
Perception is reality.
JPR1959
Well-known member
There's an old saying if you'll cheat on your wife, you'll cheat in life. Think about that for a minute before you make snide comments.
This thread was originally about Tiger vs. Jack. I think Tiger's body is going to break down before he can catch Jack. Too many of the younger players don't necessarily fear Tiger like Tiger's generation did. Tiger is getting tons of pressure to win a major, and lots of it he heaps on himself.
This thread was originally about Tiger vs. Jack. I think Tiger's body is going to break down before he can catch Jack. Too many of the younger players don't necessarily fear Tiger like Tiger's generation did. Tiger is getting tons of pressure to win a major, and lots of it he heaps on himself.
d_in_la
Not so in LA.
Hmm, so much to say here.
A thoughtful article with a mix of facts, conjecture and opinion, but mostly being fair to both Jack and Tiger's between the ropes imprint on the game we all love. Importantly, I'm happy to see something from Chamblee that didn't feel like it was shooting for a sound bite - far too often commentators fall into a convenient caricature of themselves and fail to present anything with real complexity; admittedly, one of the most difficult things you can do in a TV world of 3-minute fast-cut digestible segments while competing with hundreds of other channels and second screens. (Not to mention books for those stalwarts among us.)
Will Tiger break Jack's record? I don't know, but it would be fun to see him in the hunt again drawing attention from the masses who don't normally pay attention.
With respect to off course issues and the comparing golfers of different eras, and what one stands for and the other doesn't, blah blah blah; I'll say this, if my life was under a microscope from the time I was a kid, the golden child being coddled, primped and pressured by agents, golf companies, family, schools, I might have ended up with an odd moral compass. I wouldn't be the first, I wouldn't be the last. Jack might have turned out differently under the same pressure cooker. Even in this current verse versions (for you multiverse people) neither man is perfectly good or perfectly bad but like the article, far more complex. In Jack's time, he wasn't treated like Joe Namath. Tiger on the other hand was treated like Michael Jordan. The corruption of those scenes is so incredibly alluring and disturbing. I love watching Johnny Manziel, if I had a kid I sure wouldn't be pointing to Manziel as a role model but a great entertainer. I could go on, Dean Martin? Frank Sinatra? Magic? A list a politicians too long to type.
Which is why I don't look to Tiger as a role model, just an incredible golfer and a deeply flawed man.
A thoughtful article with a mix of facts, conjecture and opinion, but mostly being fair to both Jack and Tiger's between the ropes imprint on the game we all love. Importantly, I'm happy to see something from Chamblee that didn't feel like it was shooting for a sound bite - far too often commentators fall into a convenient caricature of themselves and fail to present anything with real complexity; admittedly, one of the most difficult things you can do in a TV world of 3-minute fast-cut digestible segments while competing with hundreds of other channels and second screens. (Not to mention books for those stalwarts among us.)
Will Tiger break Jack's record? I don't know, but it would be fun to see him in the hunt again drawing attention from the masses who don't normally pay attention.
With respect to off course issues and the comparing golfers of different eras, and what one stands for and the other doesn't, blah blah blah; I'll say this, if my life was under a microscope from the time I was a kid, the golden child being coddled, primped and pressured by agents, golf companies, family, schools, I might have ended up with an odd moral compass. I wouldn't be the first, I wouldn't be the last. Jack might have turned out differently under the same pressure cooker. Even in this current verse versions (for you multiverse people) neither man is perfectly good or perfectly bad but like the article, far more complex. In Jack's time, he wasn't treated like Joe Namath. Tiger on the other hand was treated like Michael Jordan. The corruption of those scenes is so incredibly alluring and disturbing. I love watching Johnny Manziel, if I had a kid I sure wouldn't be pointing to Manziel as a role model but a great entertainer. I could go on, Dean Martin? Frank Sinatra? Magic? A list a politicians too long to type.
Which is why I don't look to Tiger as a role model, just an incredible golfer and a deeply flawed man.
Golf's best debate because there are 100 different angles you could argue. Best over a career, best in their prime...Jack having more 2nd place finishes, but Tiger (probably) playing a tougher field.
Then there's the equipment issue, which I stay away from and focus on how they did against the same stuff.
One thing from that story: From the '62 masters to the '79 US Open, Jack in total had one more outside-the-top-10 finish than wins...what an insane stat?
The thing that wins the argument to me for Jack: the number of times he placed second is almost insane as how many times he won. I know titles is the most important thing, by far. Well he owns that too. Now I can't imagine anyone topping Tiger in his prime and at his best. But Jack was so amazing for so long it's really hard to top that.
Do you value absolute dominance for a certain period of time or totals? It's like if one outfielder dominates the game and hits 500 HRs, is he better than the guy who never dominated but was more consistent for a longer period and hit 550 HRs? Jack wins the totals argument and it's very close on the dominance issue. So, Jack has it for now.
The magic number is 18. Tiger's gotta get there or get much closer.
If this had already been posted, my mistake. But here's something sort of about the same author that was just posted: http://hotlinks.golf.com/2014/07/19/brandel-chamblee-the-tiger-era-is-over/?sct=hp4
"The Tiger Era Is Over," B.C. says.
Then there's the equipment issue, which I stay away from and focus on how they did against the same stuff.
One thing from that story: From the '62 masters to the '79 US Open, Jack in total had one more outside-the-top-10 finish than wins...what an insane stat?
The thing that wins the argument to me for Jack: the number of times he placed second is almost insane as how many times he won. I know titles is the most important thing, by far. Well he owns that too. Now I can't imagine anyone topping Tiger in his prime and at his best. But Jack was so amazing for so long it's really hard to top that.
Do you value absolute dominance for a certain period of time or totals? It's like if one outfielder dominates the game and hits 500 HRs, is he better than the guy who never dominated but was more consistent for a longer period and hit 550 HRs? Jack wins the totals argument and it's very close on the dominance issue. So, Jack has it for now.
The magic number is 18. Tiger's gotta get there or get much closer.
If this had already been posted, my mistake. But here's something sort of about the same author that was just posted: http://hotlinks.golf.com/2014/07/19/brandel-chamblee-the-tiger-era-is-over/?sct=hp4
"The Tiger Era Is Over," B.C. says.