Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 17, 2008 9:37:59 GMT -5
Seriously. How cool would it be if Norman could play well through the weekend? I realize there are probably a lot of people who are thinking about this as the Asterisk Open (which I think is a huge load of bull****, by the way), but if there's one thing that'll get a lot of people watching again -- sans Tigger -- it would be one last run at the Jug by the Great White. Of course, I've probably just jinxed him into blowing up on the back 9. But at least Phil had a good day.  |
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 17, 2008 11:39:10 GMT -5
If Greg Norman were in contention--that would just feed into the fact this tour is worthless without Woods.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 17, 2008 11:49:14 GMT -5
If Greg Norman were in contention--that would just feed into the fact this tour is worthless without Woods. Actually, the Tour would be much more exciting without Tiger. Who wants to see him win again - it's like rooting for the Yankees, or going to Vegas and rooting for the house. ON EDIT: Go Tommy! Old Man Watson throws up the best score of the players out on the course early. Shows that there really is a skill/madness to playing those Open courses in that weather. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 17, 2008 12:15:45 GMT -5
If Greg Norman were in contention--that would just feed into the fact this tour is worthless without Woods. I don't want to be hissy about this (it's just golf, after all), but I don't really see what one has to do with the other. People who think Tiger would be lapping the field in these conditions are a) crazy; b) have never played golf except on an Xbox; or c) both. The conditions are horrific. Even a healthy Tiger, at his best, would be struggling a bit today. He'd probably do a better job of it than most, but I couldn't see him at more than a few strokes better than par at best. I don't see how that would keep Norman from staying in contention. The only things that would do that would be the course, his back and his overall health. If we think this is tournament is meaningless, then we should just go ahead and wipe out all major titles before Tiger joined the tour. After all, the only reason those players won was that they were lucky enough to be a little older than Eldrich. |
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,443
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jul 17, 2008 12:29:10 GMT -5
I'm with Boz on this. I don't see it occurring, but I think it would be great if Norman were to make one last run. Come on, Whitey!
Uh, wait, that didn't come out quite right.
I hear Rocco shot a 69 today. It would also be very cool for him to win.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 17, 2008 12:53:15 GMT -5
I'm with Boz on this. I don't see it occurring, but I think it would be great if Norman were to make one last run. Come on, Whitey! Uh, wait, that didn't come out quite right. I hear Rocco shot a 69 today. It would also be very cool for him to win. Rocco, hey, that's the my pool guy's name.  |
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 17, 2008 13:26:30 GMT -5
Tiger Woods is nothing like the Yankees--he's an individual who has no decided advantage other then he's superior to every other golfer on planet. Those who hate seeing talent--don't watch--while the rest of us who enjoy Golf--but don't watch it on television unless he's involved can keep tuning in. If you enjoy parity and averageness--then watch every other professional sport in America-if you want to enjoy someone who is going to be the greatest to ever play-then feel free to enjoy Woods era.
I don't think the tournament is cheapened with his absence-but it doesn't help the argument the tour is better without Woods if fossils like Norman can contend in a Tiger-less tournament. The beauty of golf--is a Bob May or Rocco Mediate can play a great tournament and beat the field. The greatness of Woods is he doesn't allow them to beat him when that happens. He makes shots/wins--while most golfers wait for other guy to lose.
|
|
azarin
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 198
|
Post by azarin on Jul 17, 2008 13:35:32 GMT -5
He's also unlike the Yankees in that he's been the best in the world at something during this current millennium .
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 17, 2008 13:54:08 GMT -5
RDF, is your point that if Tiger Woods was playing in this tournament that Greg Norman couldn't/wouldn't be in contention?
Because that's where you lose me. I am totally with you an enjoying the excellence of Tiger Woods. I can't say I like seeing him win all of the time (then again, he doesn't win all of the time - he's won about 30% of the majors he's played), but I certainly appreciate how good he is when he does.
Remember, the Tiger Woods of 2000 -- the one who blew everyone off the course -- in large part doesn't exist anymore. Tiger wins because he makes the most important shots when they matter (and because he doesn't implode like Phil -- EVER), but he doesn't pull way ahead of the field that much anymore. So even if he was playing, Norman could still contend.
Having said all of that, I put Norman's chances of being in contention on Sunday at about the high single digits. But it's fun to think about.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 17, 2008 13:57:30 GMT -5
No, my point was I disagree with everything KCHoya said prior to his Tom Watson comments.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 17, 2008 17:26:33 GMT -5
TV ratings and live attendance are definitive proof that the Tour is better - -or certainly more popular -- with Tiger.
That said, a period without TIger, letting some other guys rise, building more personalities for the game? All that's good in the long run.
Then when Tiger comes back - WOW can you imagine what kind of marketing effort the PGA, Networks and Majors will put into it?
Can Tiger ever regain his control of the tour
can he regain his stroke
Does he still have "the stuff" to win the majors.
OF course he does and will, but the hype will be all over the place.
BReaking up his remarkable run? Probably a good thing for Tiger AND the tour in the long run.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 17, 2008 18:08:03 GMT -5
TV ratings and live attendance are definitive proof that the Tour is better - -or certainly more popular -- with Tiger. That said, a period without TIger, letting some other guys rise, building more personalities for the game? All that's good in the long run. Then when Tiger comes back - WOW can you imagine what kind of marketing effort the PGA, Networks and Majors will put into it? Can Tiger ever regain his control of the tour can he regain his stroke Does he still have "the stuff" to win the majors. OF course he does and will, but the hype will be all over the place. BReaking up his remarkable run? Probably a good thing for Tiger AND the tour in the long run. So more people watching = a better product. That's some great reasoning there. |
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 17, 2008 22:22:45 GMT -5
TV ratings and live attendance are definitive proof that the Tour is better - -or certainly more popular -- with Tiger. That said, a period without TIger, letting some other guys rise, building more personalities for the game? All that's good in the long run. Then when Tiger comes back - WOW can you imagine what kind of marketing effort the PGA, Networks and Majors will put into it? Can Tiger ever regain his control of the tour can he regain his stroke Does he still have "the stuff" to win the majors. OF course he does and will, but the hype will be all over the place. BReaking up his remarkable run? Probably a good thing for Tiger AND the tour in the long run. So more people watching = a better product. That's some great reasoning there. I'd think that the increased purses available due to higher ratings = an increase in talent seriously considering taking up the sport professionally instead of, say, baseball = better product for the sport of golf. But that's just me. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 18, 2008 13:10:56 GMT -5
There are still kids in this country that think about playing baseball professionally?
;D
Tiger is good for the sport in two ways:
1. Yes, more people taking up golf is good to ensure the long term health of the PGA and professional golf around the world. It doesn't really affect quality of play today; however
2. Tiger has made other current players work to become better. I think the players today work more, work out more, and generally increase the level of their game and athleticism in a way that hasn't been seen before, even in they heyday of Nicklaus, Watson & Trevino. That does have an immediate effect on the quality of play.
These are both great things for the sport, and they are in large part due to Tiger Woods alone.
But enough about the gimp.
Woo-hoo, Greg Norman. Second place at the turn!!!!
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 18, 2008 15:21:29 GMT -5
No one has mentioned that long lost David Duval is also in the thick of it?
And everyone's favorite Rocco?
And a very exciting young guy, Villegas?
I haven't had an opportunity to see any of it, but it sounds pretty exciting so far.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 18, 2008 15:43:14 GMT -5
More than hockey, Boz.
Tiger is not the Yankees or the House. He's not winning because of structural aspects of the game -- more money or odds in his favor. He's winning because he works harder and is better.
On the other hand, it's not like he's winning 3-4 Masters a year. Whoever wins wins legitimately, but I don't get the argument that it's more exciting because no one asserts dominance. To me, that just makes the winner a bit...not random, but too streaky. You need some level of sustained skill to add legitimacy to me. There's no reason to watch if there are thirty people who all win a tourney a year.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 18, 2008 15:55:25 GMT -5
More than hockey, Boz. Tiger is not the Yankees or the House. He's not winning because of structural aspects of the game -- more money or odds in his favor. He's winning because he works harder and is better. On the other hand, it's not like he's winning 3-4 Masters a year. Whoever wins wins legitimately, but I don't get the argument that it's more exciting because no one asserts dominance. To me, that just makes the winner a bit...not random, but too streaky. You need some level of sustained skill to add legitimacy to me. There's no reason to watch if there are thirty people who all win a tourney a year. Great post and let me add that until the Masters returns the course to what it used to be--expect more "everyman" HACKS like Juaqin Phoenix and Trevor Immelman to win the tournament. I love to see shot making/talent of the professionals--not see a bunch of great players forced to lay up and not go for shot making. If I want to see mediocre guys play golf--I'll go out to my local course and tape myself/friends. So Masters has gone from my favorite tournament to the least favorite of Majors simply because they got Editeded Woods obliterated the course and was looking as if he would win 10 Green Jackets. So instead of accepting his greatness--they ruined the course. Jack doesn't win at age 46 with course as it's currently played and that was a great moment. I just enjoy great athletes and can't stand seeing things "manipulated" to be more fair. It's up to others to raise their game as guys above have said--not for playing field to be even by punishing superior players. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 18, 2008 17:53:12 GMT -5
On the other hand, it's not like he's winning 3-4 Masters a year. Now THAT would be a feat! ;D I think a lot of golf fans would disagree with that premise. I like to see lots of different players win. It doesn't mean that I'm anti-Tiger or not in complete awe of his ability and performance, but I like that every once in a while a Zach Johnson can take it to him. But, the fact that this was a thread I'd started about Greg Norman, and most of the conversation, including by me, has been about Tiger pretty much speaks for itself. He is a once - MAYBE twice - in a lifetime kind of athlete. |
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,443
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jul 18, 2008 21:19:42 GMT -5
I pretty much concur with everything that's been said in the last few posts - except that I would be amazed if Joaquin Phoenix won the Masters under any conditions.
This British Open could be heading for something amazing. I about fell off my chair when I saw David Duval on the leaderboard. Among Norman, Rocco and Duval, I honestly don't know who I would like to see win the most.
And while Norman isn't Nicklaus, RDF, you've really made the point as to why I'm supporting Norman here - we've got a formerly outstanding player turning back the echoes. I never liked Nicklaus, but I thought his final win at the Masters was fantastic - of course, it was also great golf.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 19, 2008 11:30:58 GMT -5
And let's not forget that Nickalus' victim at that 86 Masters was.......Greg Norman.
|
|
