| |
Main
Date: 28 Jan 2007 18:22:02
From: warren montgomery
Subject: ho hum
|
Another tournament where Tiger wins because everyone else seems to suffer
the final 9 brain damage. Is it just me or are these things getting boring?
I suppose it wouldn't be so boring if we didn't have to listen to the
announcers gush over tiger quite so much.
PS: What's up with "the streak"? I thought that even Tiger said it ended
when he lost something late last year.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 08:55:31
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
On Jan 28, 7:22 pm, "warren montgomery"
<wamontgom...@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> Another tournament where Tiger wins because everyone else seems to suffer
> the final 9 brain damage. Is it just me or are these things getting boring?
> I suppose it wouldn't be so boring if we didn't have to listen to the
> announcers gush over tiger quite so much.
So let me get this straight.
Tiger shoots the lowest round of the day, a 66, and yet somehow you
think he backed into this win?
Buckle shot 72, Quinney shot 70. It's not like those guys blew a 5-
shot lead with a 80 or something. The leaders often shoot worse on
the final round because of the added pressure and the fact that the
course plays harder. That Tiger can play better in the 4th round
under these conditions is a testament to his greatness.
Any "gushing" from the announcers seems warranted, especially when it
comes from someone like Faldo, who has a pretty good idea of how
difficult it is to do what Tiger is doing. His schooling started 10
years ago in the first round of the 1997 Masters. Paired with Tiger in
the first round they both shot 40 on the front-9. Faldo improved on
the back, shooting a 35. Tiger shot 30.
The next day Tiger beat Faldo by 15 shots (66 to 81). How must Faldo
have felt that week knowing that he was the #1 player in the world and
thinking, "I can't play this kid!"?
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 09:28:19
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
>
> Buckle shot 72, Quinney shot 70. It's not like those guys blew a 5-
> shot lead with a 80 or something. The leaders often shoot worse on
> the final round because of the added pressure and the fact that the
> course plays harder. That Tiger can play better in the 4th round
> under these conditions is a testament to his greatness.
>
Buckle and Quinney were both on a path to equal or better Tiger's 18 hole
score until they got to the back 9. The other rookie (the guy with the 61
on the first day who lead most of the first 3) ran out of gas a bit sooner.
I'm not saying Tiger didn't play well, just that it's boring -- like
watching yet another Rocky movie -- by now you know what's going to happen
in the end, and you've seen it enough times it's no longer all that
interesting to watch.
>
> Any "gushing" from the announcers seems warranted, especially when it
> comes from someone like Faldo, who has a pretty good idea of how
> difficult it is to do what Tiger is doing.
>
Again, I'm not saying Faldo isn't telling it like he sees it, just that I'm
not into it. I don't want to hear anyone reminsce about Jack's Majors or
Lord Byron's streak either. I know all that stuff. I know how many times
Tiger has won the tournament. I know he's in a class by himself. If they
want to be more interesting, spend more time analyzing how he does it and
less on the praise. I'd love to know how Tiger can consistently sink 15
footers when he needs them, and how he can manage to hit 4 bad shots on a
hole and still not lose a stroke. There were some teachable moments on
Sunday, I think one hole on which Tiger, Buckle, and Quinney missed the
green in the same bad spot -- Tiger hit a flop tight as I recall while the
other two hacked their way to doubles. I get into spots like that all the
time and wouldn't mind the focus on what Tiger did that was different.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 12:49:38
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:28:19 -0600, "warren montgomery"
<wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>>
>> Buckle shot 72, Quinney shot 70. It's not like those guys blew a 5-
>> shot lead with a 80 or something. The leaders often shoot worse on
>> the final round because of the added pressure and the fact that the
>> course plays harder. That Tiger can play better in the 4th round
>> under these conditions is a testament to his greatness.
>>
>Buckle and Quinney were both on a path to equal or better Tiger's 18 hole
>score until they got to the back 9. The other rookie (the guy with the 61
>on the first day who lead most of the first 3) ran out of gas a bit sooner.
>I'm not saying Tiger didn't play well, just that it's boring -- like
>watching yet another Rocky movie -- by now you know what's going to happen
>in the end, and you've seen it enough times it's no longer all that
>interesting to watch.
>>
Personally, I like to see Tiger win. I don't know why exactly. I
supposed it's along the same vein as Elway having the ball needing to
go 80 yards in 90 seconds for a winning TD, or 17 seconds to play, the
Bulls down by one, and Jordan with the ball. There is just something
amazing to me how he always pulls out the win. Granted, at times the
other players falter but in general I think it is Tiger stepping on
their throats and not letting up.
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 15:54:42
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:28:19 -0600, "warren montgomery"
<wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> I'd love to know how Tiger can consistently sink 15
>footers when he needs them, and how he can manage to hit 4 bad shots on a
>hole and still not lose a stroke.
You can't expect the announcers to tell you the answer to these
questions. If Faldo knew, he'd have a lot more wins.
>There were some teachable moments on Sunday, I think one hole on which Tiger, Buckle, and Quinney missed the
>green in the same bad spot -- Tiger hit a flop tight as I recall while the
>other two hacked their way to doubles. I get into spots like that all the
>time and wouldn't mind the focus on what Tiger did that was different.
He simply hit a great shot. This is his forte...and I'm not sure that
getting to his level on the short game is teachable to amateurs older
than 10 :-). It's gonna take years to perfect.
I was amazed at how much of a swing he took for such a short shot.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 23:03:29
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
"Is it just me or are these things getting boring?"
Geez, with reflexes that slow, I hope you're not driving or running
machinery.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 02:59:00
From: Manco
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
warren montgomery wrote:
> Another tournament where Tiger wins because everyone else seems to
> suffer the final 9 brain damage. Is it just me or are these things
> getting boring? I suppose it wouldn't be so boring if we didn't have
> to listen to the announcers gush over tiger quite so much.
>
> PS: What's up with "the streak"? I thought that even Tiger said it
> ended when he lost something late last year.
Right now Tiger's only competition is with Roger Federer.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 17:56:38
From:
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
On Jan 28, 4:22 pm, "warren montgomery" >
> PS: What's up with "the streak"? I thought that even Tiger said it ended
> when he lost something late last year.
Please please God don't let Tiger win all the majors this year, or
there will be 500 posts wondering why the reporters are calling it a
grand slam, when Tiger only finished second at the Doral.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 01:41:54
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:22:02 -0600, "warren montgomery"
<wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>Another tournament where Tiger wins because everyone else seems to suffer
>the final 9 brain damage. Is it just me or are these things getting boring?
>I suppose it wouldn't be so boring if we didn't have to listen to the
>announcers gush over tiger quite so much.
Charles Howell III seemed to play the final round well.
>PS: What's up with "the streak"? I thought that even Tiger said it ended
>when he lost something late last year.
That's a media thing. Notice that when they asked him about the
streak, he replied that he had fun today?
The media are about hype to get ratings - and the streak is one of
their hype tools. Tiger's too st to be pulled in.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 06:31:49
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
>> Another tournament where Tiger wins because everyone else seems to suffer
>> the final 9 brain damage. Is it just me or are these things getting boring?
>> I suppose it wouldn't be so boring if we didn't have to listen to the
>> announcers gush over tiger quite so much.
>
> Charles Howell III seemed to play the final round well.
I was following the fortune of Andrew Buckle. He was going well until he
had a double and three bogeys. But he's a rookie playing his third-ever
event.
Most of the other guns were in the field but nowhere to be seen, so you
can hardly leave it to inexperienced players like Buckle to make a go of it.
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 03:53:21
From: Jim McKinley
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:33kqr2d233hqi9dn1vl52jkqei8sf6bvmp@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:22:02 -0600, "warren montgomery"
> <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Another tournament where Tiger wins because everyone else seems to suffer
>>the final 9 brain damage. Is it just me or are these things getting
>>boring?
>>I suppose it wouldn't be so boring if we didn't have to listen to the
>>announcers gush over tiger quite so much.
>
> Charles Howell III seemed to play the final round well.
>
>>PS: What's up with "the streak"? I thought that even Tiger said it ended
>>when he lost something late last year.
>
> That's a media thing. Notice that when they asked him about the
> streak, he replied that he had fun today?
>
> The media are about hype to get ratings - and the streak is one of
> their hype tools. Tiger's too st to be pulled in.
Did Byron Nelson actually have eleven in a row or was his streak one like
Tigers with a non-PGA tournament loss sandwiched in? Also I noticed that
part of Tiger's streak is the British Open. I would not have thought this
would count as a PGA Tour win.
Jim
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 12:48:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:53:21 GMT, "Jim McKinley"
<bigmck@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
>Did Byron Nelson actually have eleven in a row or was his streak one like
>Tigers with a non-PGA tournament loss sandwiched in? Also I noticed that
>part of Tiger's streak is the British Open. I would not have thought this
>would count as a PGA Tour win.
A couple of years ago, the PGA Tour included the British Open as one
of their events - this retroactively changed the number of Tour Wins
for a few players. The big winner in this redefinition was Greg
Norman who instantly had the 20 wins that is a qualifying criterion
for tour events.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 22:57:36
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: ho hum
|
Jim McKinley wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:33kqr2d233hqi9dn1vl52jkqei8sf6bvmp@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:22:02 -0600, "warren montgomery"
>> <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Another tournament where Tiger wins because everyone else seems to suffer
>>> the final 9 brain damage. Is it just me or are these things getting
>>> boring?
>>> I suppose it wouldn't be so boring if we didn't have to listen to the
>>> announcers gush over tiger quite so much.
>> Charles Howell III seemed to play the final round well.
>>
>>> PS: What's up with "the streak"? I thought that even Tiger said it ended
>>> when he lost something late last year.
>> That's a media thing. Notice that when they asked him about the
>> streak, he replied that he had fun today?
>>
>> The media are about hype to get ratings - and the streak is one of
>> their hype tools. Tiger's too st to be pulled in.
>
> Did Byron Nelson actually have eleven in a row or was his streak one like
> Tigers with a non-PGA tournament loss sandwiched in? Also I noticed that
> part of Tiger's streak is the British Open. I would not have thought this
> would count as a PGA Tour win.
The money from the British Open counts on the PGA Tour money list
therefore, it is a PGA Tour sanctioned event.
|
|
