We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Should Tiger be a 2014 Ryder Cup Pick?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tadashi70 said:
You realize you still have to hit the ball even at familiar tracks. Jack won many times on the same course. Steve striker. Mark omertà, Phil. It doesn't lessen the wins and that has no bearing on my opening post.
Click to expand...
I get that. But even with my dislike for Tiger I can still say he is the greatest of my generation. He's racked up a ton of wins and 14 majors accomplishments than most Tour players won't ever even sniff at. So sorry if I don't get super stoked to see Tiger win a tournament he's won 8 times. I just don't feel past achievements should warrant a spot that is not earned, especially if his game is not up to where it was. Every argument for him getting in always has to do with tournaments played last season and beyond (pre back surgery). I know we all love golf so I know that there is no one on here that watched The Open can say Tigers game looks to be in good shape. If he finds his swing and rattles off a couple top 25s at the WGC and PGA championship then pick him his swing is heading in the right direction, but if not don't come at with this garbage (not intended at you personally) of there is no one else that's better.
 
If someone else had stepped up, I would be the 1st to say he does not belong. NOBODY has. Nobody has come close to even being noticed.
 
JB said:
If someone else had stepped up, I would be the 1st to say he does not belong. NOBODY has. Nobody has come close to even being noticed.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much my stance. Sure there are some other options but none of them are clearly performing better than Tiger at the moment.
 
JB said:
If someone else had stepped up, I would be the 1st to say he does not belong. NOBODY has. Nobody has come close to even being noticed.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on that, which is kinda sad on for what Team USA is going to look like. Now if I could somehow trade Jim Furyk off the Team I'd take Tiger, lol. But honestly Nobody is going to as dominant as Tiger Woods was, so I think when you say no has stepped it up you are still basing it on the dominance we are used to seeing in Tiger. Kirk and Todd are both winners this year that have to play a full schedule, both playing over 20+ events. They are both young (28ish) so if you are going to gamble why not give the young guys the nod and give them the experience, heck they may be US Ian Poulter for all we know.
 
jspangs said:
I get that. But even with my dislike for Tiger I can still say he is the greatest of my generation. He's racked up a ton of wins and 14 majors accomplishments than most Tour players won't ever even sniff at. So sorry if I don't get super stoked to see Tiger win a tournament he's won 8 times. I just don't feel past achievements should warrant a spot that is not earned, especially if his game is not up to where it was. Every argument for him getting in always has to do with tournaments played last season and beyond (pre back surgery). I know we all love golf so I know that there is no one on here that watched The Open can say Tigers game looks to be in good shape. If he finds his swing and rattles off a couple top 25s at the WGC and PGA championship then pick him his swing is heading in the right direction, but if not don't come at with this garbage (not intended at you personally) of there is no one else that's better.
Click to expand...

No one is taking your feeling away from you but you are getting charged up over others opinions. Why? In the grand scheme of things it means nothing if he plays or doesn't. I started the thread because it is a topic top on peoples minds. No reason to get so amped.

Based on his recent play I don't feel he should get in. But the reason you don't get excited about some his wins is in play at the Ryder cup host course. He has won there before and very well could feed off that knowledge. I'm speculating but by your admission he has courses he favors.
 
Too many times decisions in sports are made based on what the player was, not what they are now. Tiger has done nothing this year to separate himself from other candidates for a spot. If that changes between now and pick time then it makes no sense to leave him off the team if he is playing well enough. But if he is struggling and not being relevant on the weekends in tournaments then it's time to start grooming the future of the USA team IMO.
 
Tadashi70 said:
No one is taking your feeling away from you but you are getting charged up over others opinions. Why? In the grand scheme of things it means nothing if he plays or doesn't. I started the thread because it is a topic top on peoples minds. No reason to get so amped.

Based on his recent play I don't feel he should get in. But the reason you don't get excited about some his wins is in play at the Ryder cup host course. He has won there before and very well could feed off that knowledge. I'm speculating but by your admission he has courses he favors.
Click to expand...
I'm not charged up. It may come across that way on here, but really I just enjoy a healthy debate. It keeps me on my toes mentally and I enjoy researching random things. But with this debate all anyone said was he's Tiger Woods he deserves a lifetime exemption to the Ryder Cup (exaggeration but not really to much of a stretch) with no other reason but what he's done in the past. If people don't enjoy debating don't reply, but when I see a notification saying someone responded I take that as an invitation in these kind of threads. Sorry if anyone has felt angry over any of my post.
 
jspangs said:
I just don't feel past achievements should warrant a spot that is not earned, especially if his game is not up to where it was. Every argument for him getting in always has to do with tournaments played last season and beyond (pre back surgery). .
Click to expand...

Imo there is a problem with the "highlighted" first part of your statement. With Tiger (unlike other good and even great players) we are not talking about normal great past achievements. We are talking about achievements that has caused him to go down in history as being arguably the best to ever play the game. Not just one of the best among the pro's in general but the best of the ones considered the best of them. Its like going to the baseball or football hall of fame where all the best are and then taking the best one of those. And this guy is still competing and has yet to finish. That kind of achievement which isn't even yet complete imo certainly does earn him the consideration. And no (before anyone is thinking this) its not the same as now giving Jack a call. And If that really has to be explained as being different then there is no sense in conversing further.

Not being healthy is one thing but to say (baring injury) its not earned imo does not apply in his case. At least not yet. Perhaps some point in the future, but he is not retired, still competing, certainly not too old. As long as he is healthy he has imo still earned it. It will take quite a few years before one says he has no longer earned it but I don't think we are there yet. Jack won the masters 6 years removed from his last prior major and 11 years from his last masters. Tiger still has a lot of golf ahead of him baring injury including this one. That's why I say that's the only exception but that's not about earning it. That is a different problem. But with all his extremely exceptional achievement he has earned the right to get a much longer tenure vs other players before we can say he has no longer earned it. Thats just the way it is imo. I'm not saying he must be picked but to say he hasn't earned the consideration I don't think is correct in his case. Not yet.
 
jspangs said:
I'm not charged up. It may come across that way on here, but really I just enjoy a healthy debate. It keeps me on my toes mentally and I enjoy researching random things. But with this debate all anyone said was he's Tiger Woods he deserves a lifetime exemption to the Ryder Cup (exaggeration but not really to much of a stretch) with no other reason but what he's done in the past. If people don't enjoy debating don't reply, but when I see a notification saying someone responded I take that as an invitation in these kind of threads. Sorry if anyone has felt angry over any of my post.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, you are talking about what has happened in the past too. Every event played so far is in the "past". So the discussion is just how far back do you want to go?

As I said previously in this thread, Ryder Cup points used to be accumulated over 2 years and not just 1 year. So it's not "ridiculous" to consider Tiger as a pick for this year's team because his 5 wins last year would have counted had the rules for accumulating points not changed.

I get that you aren't a Tiger fan and you don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but there are people who do feel that a player's accomplishments in the past should be a consideration. Of the golfer's you have named in this thread, how many of them have won the match play championship? Tiger has won it a few times...not to mention his successes as an amateur. You can't just ignore all of that experience when considering picks. And the same goes for Phil as far as I'm concerned, and I think it's pretty well known that I'm not a Phil fan at all.
 
I, too, am not a Tiger Fan. But I applaud his accomplishments. Either he or Jack is 'the greatest'. I just looked at a couple of Ryder Cup teams that Jack and Arnie were NOT on. '79, 81 with '83 being Jack's last team as member. I don't remember any of these type of questions about who should or shouldn't be on the teams. Maybe I was too young or maybe the Ryder Cup wasn't as in the spotlight as it is now.

I still think that Tiger CAN bring it together enough to be a pick. My gosh, he was the player of the year last year with 5, count 'em, 5 friggin' wins. BUT he has to play, play, play. (if he's healthy enough). If he gets in the top 25 in the points lists, pick him.

This site has fascinating info on the Ryder cup. http://golf.about.com/od/teamcompetitions/a/rydercupresults.htm
 
This year, no. Next Ryder Cup, hopefully yes. But, I would like to see him play, it's always more interesting when he is playing.
 
ArmyGolf said:
This is pretty much my stance. Sure there are some other options but none of them are clearly performing better than Tiger at the moment.
Click to expand...
I actually think all of them are performing better at the moment. That's the only reason to keep Tiger off the team, as he is obviously the superior overall player.
 
There is no way Tiger deserves to get in. He doesn't intimidate players the way he used to and in afraid to say that based in his current form it'd almost be sacrificing points in any matches he was involved in. He's by no means past it out over the hill but he's not good enough CURRENTLY to warrant a place in the team.
 
SaffaClint said:
There is no way Tiger deserves to get in. He doesn't intimidate players the way he used to and in afraid to say that based in his current form it'd almost be sacrificing points in any matches he was involved in. He's by no means past it out over the hill but he's not good enough CURRENTLY to warrant a place in the team.
Click to expand...
Nobody outside the top 9 "deserves" to get in.
 
Erky said:
Nobody outside the top 9 "deserves" to get in.
Click to expand...

You're right but at the same time at least the captains picks are usually guys who are playing decent golf. Tiger is playing anything but decent golf and I can't see him improving enough in such a short amount of time. Sure he won 5 times last year, that was LAST YEAR though.
 
SaffaClint said:
. He doesn't intimidate players the way he used to.
Click to expand...

Does anyone intimidate players "the way Tiger use to"??
How many can make the argument of ever being the all time best to ever play the game?
The only person or thing that comes close to doing that or that may create the illusion or thought of that to even be placed in any ones mind is the presence of , guess what? Tiger, no?
 
Mulligan9111 said:
Ryder Cup points used to be accumulated over 2 years and not just 1 year.
Click to expand...

Best change they ever could have made. Two years is a long time to compare, and in a case like Tiger it would give you a completely inaccurate perception of how good he really is right now. Last year was last year, this year he is not close to even that golfer - forget his former self which he has shown zero signs of becoming ever again.

You ask how far back should one look? The current season is the perfect amount. It shows what they are doing now, what they are likely to be doing this fall. There is enough time left for Tiger to round into a shape similar to last year, and be picked on merit. But if he doesn't get his game back, why would you willingly put someone playing bad golf on the team if you had a choice not to? Tiger should be held to the same standard in this regard as everyone else, because it's likely right now that the US team is going to be the underdog going into it as it is.
 
rbarthle17 said:
Best change they ever could have made. Two years is a long time to compare, and in a case like Tiger it would give you a completely inaccurate perception of how good he really is right now. Last year was last year, this year he is not close to even that golfer - forget his former self which he has shown zero signs of becoming ever again.

You ask how far back should one look? The current season is the perfect amount. It shows what they are doing now, what they are likely to be doing this fall. There is enough time left for Tiger to round into a shape similar to last year, and be picked on merit. But if he doesn't get his game back, why would you willingly put someone playing bad golf on the team if you had a choice not to? Tiger should be held to the same standard in this regard as everyone else, because it's likely right now that the US team is going to be the underdog going into it as it is.
Click to expand...

Being held in the same standard? Yes and no. Remember that his standard is like no other. He (like it or not) is not the same as everyone else. Whether that seems fair or not it is what it is. Simply put, he doesn't just fall into the same bucket as anyone else. No athlete in any sport who has such a resume ever does. Whether that's a Wayne Gretzky, a Mariano Rivera, a Payton manning, a Babe Ruth, a Michael Jordan, etc , etc. When we talk of these athletes who are or have been the best of the best they just don't fall into the same pool as just anyone else. Like it or not or fair or not, that's just the way it is. Even officials, umpires, and ref's favor such athletes. They all get away with more and all are better protected with more. It may not seem fair but that's just what it is.

I have never said in all my posts that he should or has to be on the team. But every time one makes the argument against (with exception of health) and says or uses the analogy of things like "not earned" , "not deserving" , or references things like "not fair to others". These reasons just don't fly imo. Not for tiger, at least not yet. And I'm not even any big Tiger fan but I understand that's just the way it is. The same way they wouldn't for the others. I don't know if any of that is right or wrong but the accomplishments are not of the norm for these players and therefore are not viewed the same as other players not only by most fans but also by most involved in the respective sports including other players. For guys like this (right or wrong) they get a longer tenure before it can be said they are no longer deserving vs the average player and even vs the better current players. Their unmatched resumes do buy this for them whether we like it or not.

For any players or fans of other players that feel cheated by this, go out and put together that kind of history resume first and then come back and talk before using the terms "not earned", "not deserving" or "not fair" or "should be treated the same". Those unfortunately just don't work in the case of Tiger the same way they do for the rest. Eventually they will but at least not yet. The unmatched extreme resumes buy them sort of a credit. Eventually it wares out but takes a longer time vs others. When? who really knows but Its not yet. Especially when there is still uncertainty and possibility of getting the better half of such a player. That is just unknown right now and for the near future and cannot be completely counted out yet. Remember jack went 6 years between his last masters and any major prior to that. Was basically counted out of it and Tiger isn't even that old yet.
 
Last edited:
Really interesting thread... As a European, it'd be a shame not to see him, but I'd actually rather see him than Bradley, who clearly really 'got' the occasion last time out at Medinah and I could see him doing what Poulter does for us and rise to the competition. Watching Tiger clearly hate the last two rounds at Hoylake was painful on a number of levels. Whilst it's sad that he's nowhere near where he should be, he just seemed like he didn't want to be there and that for me is why you should have someone younger and hungrier. Hopefully in two years time this will be a complete non-debate, one way or the other.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
No No No No and Hell No
 
I like Tiger, but I don't see how anyone can argue that he deserves a captains pick just based on who he is rather than selecting the guys who are 10, 11, & 12. Its like "hey you've earned it, but we're gonna give it to this guy who is 72nd instead". TW or not, the rankings are there for a reason, and he's not even close. Popularity should never trump stats, just my opinion.
 
Once Jack said he should be that was all that is needed, unless Tiger gets hurt he will be playing at Gleneagles
 
I'dHitThat said:
I like Tiger, but I don't see how anyone can argue that he deserves a captains pick just based on who he is rather than selecting the guys who are 10, 11, & 12. Its like "hey you've earned it, but we're gonna give it to this guy who is 72nd instead". TW or not, the rankings are there for a reason, and he's not even close. Popularity should never trump stats, just my opinion.
Click to expand...

So, why have captain's picks at all?

ETA: Not that I'm advocating for Tiger, but if we're going to take 10, 11, 12 every time it defeats the prupose of having a few WCs.
 
OkieSpladle said:
So, why have captain's picks at all?
Click to expand...

Good question, there shouldn't be one IMO. Give the slots to the guys who have actually earned them this year, not the popularity contest winners or the Captain's buddies. Not saying I'm right, again just my opinion.

I get it though, golf is boring to the majority without TW, but he will only be around for who knows how much longer and eventually golf is going to have to attempt to succeed without him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top