Congrats Tiger - take that Johnny Miller! (1 Viewer)

Tiger put on another clinic this weekend. I remember Miller saying that Tiger is an "old" 29 and his best game is behind him. Well, two majors and counting baby.

Johnny Miller should know about getting old early especially with the way his golfing career turned out. Talking about losing it and never getting it back. Anyhow, I think we are lucky to be able to watch and observed one the three greatest golfers in history.





Crawdaddy

I used to be a BIG fan of golf on TV, and I guess this
is a good thread to vent about how TV coverage of the
sport forced me to stop watching.

Drew- If you're saying that Miller is an a-hole, I'm
not going to argue that with you. I also think Miller
is an a-hole, but for a different reason- he talks down
to the viewers. I remember a comment that he made during
the U.S. Women's Open 2 or 3 years ago, when the unknown won
(I think her name is Hilary Lunke). Somebody hit an
approach shot with a fairway wood, and the shot was going
a little left off target. That jerkoff's remark was "The
fans out there like the shot- it got airborne". Nobody
doing sports broadcasts should slam the audiences (bite
the hand that feeds him). As much as I don't like his
arrogance, I do like that he will get on players and be
at times brutally honest when talking about their games
and their failures. Miller is probably the only analyst
for golf that will say anything remotely negative about
Tiger. I stopped watching golf because it has become obvious
that the networks are slanting their coverage to "the names"
instead of the game. Most other alalysts will openly root
for him on the air, which is unprofessional. Networks will
give him ridiculous amounts of air time, even when he has
no chance to win, and also to the exclusion of other players
who are closer to the top of the leader board. I guess that
I'm in the minority of sports fans, but I feel that players
or athletes come and go, but the game or sport is the
reason to watch. I don't need a "name" to watch the
event, and I certainly don't need to watch slanted
and partial coverage of an event to pump up the "name".

Tiger Woods is in great form (again). I honestly didn't doubt he would win. Great sportsman to watch playing!


Cees

I watch a lot of golf and I honestly don't recall Miller ever definitively saying Woods' best game is behind him.

Just wait until he can get his "A" game in putting back in gear, that's when he'll be really scary again (as in runaway victories). He could have had a shot at the grand slam in 2005 had he putted just a little better last month in the US Open (2nd place finish). That's that scary bit about Tiger's year so far.

I remembered Miller saying on a sports talk show that Woods is no longer a dominant golfer and his game is screwed up while other golfers have caught up with him and perhaps have passed him.





Crawdaddy

Yesterday evening, I saw him on TV, saying (to a reporter) he was definitely going to win and adding something like "Tiger's worst enemy is Tiger Woods, he's going to meet him tomorrow". Or words to that extent.

I said to my wife "Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!"


Cees

Who said that, Miller? If so that's quite funny considering the source. Anyhow, I'd pay more attention to what the Golden Bear said when he stated that Tiger Woods is the best golfer he's seen and will probably break my records if he remains healthy.

I screwed up that line it should read "he definitely wasn't going to win".


But thinking of it again, I'm not even sure anymore that the clip was about the current tournament. Sorry for the whole confusion.


BTW, Johnny Miller did say before (back in November) that "Woods best play was behind him": see this link to an article in USATODAY.


Cees

Yup, that's the story. I wonder how many copies of his book he sold by attempting to be controversal

Miller has got to be feeling like a total moron right about now, and deservedly so. Props to Tiger! Whenever he plays in a major I'm absolutely glued to the tube, and I'm not a golfer (only played once). He is such a riveting presence and so gifted he's made a golf fan out of me over the last 8 years (well, a Tiger fan). I think he'll have Jack's record before he turns 35. Bring on the PGA!

But a great player or athlete is what captures the imagination of people. There's a reason why Yankee Stadium is "The House that Ruth built", or why Joe Louis became such an icon, or why Lance Armstrong garners such interest. People want to see great accomplishments, records broken, a new standard of excellence. That's why everyone was watching when the home run record was broken, or why everyone will get excited when the single season rushing record is broken. Tiger is chasing history. Like almost everyone else, I get excited when I see him doing things that no other golfer has done. It's wonderful drama.

Totally agree, Robert. I also agree that in most cases a sport is larger than an individual, but in special cases like those mentioned above, a rare athlete can transform the imagination and transcend the sport. It's happened only a handful of times ever, and we're lucky that today we've got two supreme sportsmen (Lance and Tiger) achieving things in their respective sports that even the non-enthusiast takes great interest in. Personally, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about cycling or golf if they weren't involved.

If Tiger's putter hadn't let him down on the back 9 on Sunday at Pinehurst, he would be going for the grand slam at the PGA next month. It looks like his swing changes have finally worked out, and he's back in top form. He's over halfway to Nicklaus's majors record, but still has a ways to go.

One record of Jack's that Tiger will never get, though, is the Golden Bear's number of 2nd place finishes in majors (19). Woods is currently at two. It's mind boggling to think how many majors Nicklaus could have won, considering how close he came so many other times.

Nothing to do with Tiger, but is there steroid testing in golf?

I don't know, but Phil, Monty and Daly definitely look like they're on roids.





Crawdaddy

Steroids haven't really been a concern in golf, but there was some controversy a few years ago regarding some players being suspected of using beta-blockers to help with nerves. The discussion just went away after awhile, though.

I know this is sacrilegious to suggest, but does anyone else feel that St. Andrews has become an obsolete course for a major championship? The course is wide open, and many of the par 4 holes are drivable by many of the pros. With players hitting the ball farther, many of the bunkers (one of the course's best defenses in the past) have been taken out of play. I do not mind seeing a par 4 every now and then that can been driven by the longer pros, but there were at least four of these that even golfers of average length were reaching this week.

I agree about St. Andrews Old Course being too easy for a major. However, they did lengthen some of the Par 4's to bring some of the fairway bunkers back into play. I personally like to see major tournament winners be -5 or higher.

Maybe for experience golfers watching the tournament, but to generate higher television ratings from the general public that would be a killer and they're not about to kill that golden goose.