United We Stand - uwsboard.com

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

nolanvt wrote:CFB is going to be so ready for Augusta next year. Can’t wait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have been to Augusta in person and I watch the masters every year. I watch as much of it as I can. I watch a lot of golf overall. I watch more than one particular golfer though, so that makes me a hater.

Actually, your apparent ire for one particular golfer makes you a hater.

I have said many times Tiger Woods is the second greatest golfer of all time. I respect his accomplishments, I love his "game", and I honestly would love to see him truly "back".. It's his fanbois that I hate. Not Tiger.. Its the clowns that say he was a good husband, not a sex addict, did not pop a bunch of pills and drive, and will win 8 majors after he is 41- just because. It's those yahoos that I hate, not Tiger.

Got it, fair enough

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he can play this well vs. a 17 man silly season field, 8 more majors is in play, IMHO... BACK

Yep, a slack field. Dustin Johnson, Justin Thomas, Fowler, Stenson, Kuchar, Spieth, Hoffman, Matsuyama.. He clearly picked all the chumps to play.

Woosh.. resort, soft course, silly season- no stakes and just 16 other guys- don't care if it was Jack and Arnie in their prime. This is a non-event, a fluff tourney- the furthest thing from a major championship. But Like I said, a subpar round and 11 fairways hit = 7 or 8 more majors for Tiger, IMO. He's "BACK" ...[/quote]
Actually it isn't a soft resort course. You may want to look into that a little bit more. It was actually designed specifically for tournament play and played fairly hard. I love your "silly season" comment -- I guess you're a golf "purist"! And of curse competing and winning meant nothing to these top players, nothing at all.

I never said Woods is BACK. I'm just commenting on his ability after all of those surgeries to come back and play well for 4 days in a competitive environment. Haters gonna hate though.[/quote]

The players-not me- said the course was soft and set up for scoring. When you have guys shoot 30 for nine holes and 61-63's then its not Shinnecock Hills, and you know this. Out of curiosity, what do you call a 17 person hand picked field, made for TV, unofficial event played after the tour championship during the wrap-around? What do you call that?[/quote]
How many 61s and 63s were there among the 72 rounds? It was a competitive tournament with the top players in the world participating. Who cares that there weren't another 100 guys playing? They're just filler. Marginal players filling out the field for two days before missing the cut.This was all quality guys.

What does the wrap around have to do with anything? I get it. You hate woods. Fine. No reason to trash a solid tournament.[/quote]

You CONTINUE to miss the point. The Pro Bowl has a lot of great NFL players in it too. But it has no impact on the "regular" season, no pressure, its a fluff trip, its for money. Henrick Stenson's wife caddied for him for the first time ever last week.. yeah, he was really trying to win/be on his game- lol. The Hero World Challenge is THE definition of a silly season made for TV event. Your fawning over Tiger doesn't change that. And if you can't tell the difference in difficulty beating 16 world class players vs. 100, then I can't help you.[/quote]
jack-wad, I haven't fawned over Woods so at least try and get one or two facts straight. My comments are about the competitiveness of the event only. Your comparison to the pro-bowl is inane. In the pro-bowl the players aren't trying, they are playing with limited plays, and are restricted in what they can do (blitz, etc.). No such constraints last weekend.

The difference in beating 16 world class players and 100? I'll tell you. It's that the other 84 have little or no chance of competing for the win. That's a fact of life on the PGA tour.

Again with your silly season. I guess for you the "season" starts with the Masters and ends with the PGA, nothing else matters, correct? That tells me all I need to know about you and golf.[/quote]

The 84 most definitely have a chance. That’s incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
Sure, like VT has a chance to win a national championship in football. Just have to have the moon, sun and stars align at that moment and get hot for a week...but still very unlikely.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he can play this well vs. a 17 man silly season field, 8 more majors is in play, IMHO... BACK

Yep, a slack field. Dustin Johnson, Justin Thomas, Fowler, Stenson, Kuchar, Spieth, Hoffman, Matsuyama.. He clearly picked all the chumps to play.

Woosh.. resort, soft course, silly season- no stakes and just 16 other guys- don't care if it was Jack and Arnie in their prime. This is a non-event, a fluff tourney- the furthest thing from a major championship. But Like I said, a subpar round and 11 fairways hit = 7 or 8 more majors for Tiger, IMO. He's "BACK" ...[/quote]
Actually it isn't a soft resort course. You may want to look into that a little bit more. It was actually designed specifically for tournament play and played fairly hard. I love your "silly season" comment -- I guess you're a golf "purist"! And of curse competing and winning meant nothing to these top players, nothing at all.

I never said Woods is BACK. I'm just commenting on his ability after all of those surgeries to come back and play well for 4 days in a competitive environment. Haters gonna hate though.[/quote]

The players-not me- said the course was soft and set up for scoring. When you have guys shoot 30 for nine holes and 61-63's then its not Shinnecock Hills, and you know this. Out of curiosity, what do you call a 17 person hand picked field, made for TV, unofficial event played after the tour championship during the wrap-around? What do you call that?[/quote]
How many 61s and 63s were there among the 72 rounds? It was a competitive tournament with the top players in the world participating. Who cares that there weren't another 100 guys playing? They're just filler. Marginal players filling out the field for two days before missing the cut.This was all quality guys.

What does the wrap around have to do with anything? I get it. You hate woods. Fine. No reason to trash a solid tournament.[/quote]

You CONTINUE to miss the point. The Pro Bowl has a lot of great NFL players in it too. But it has no impact on the "regular" season, no pressure, its a fluff trip, its for money. Henrick Stenson's wife caddied for him for the first time ever last week.. yeah, he was really trying to win/be on his game- lol. The Hero World Challenge is THE definition of a silly season made for TV event. Your fawning over Tiger doesn't change that. And if you can't tell the difference in difficulty beating 16 world class players vs. 100, then I can't help you.[/quote]
jack-wad, I haven't fawned over Woods so at least try and get one or two facts straight. My comments are about the competitiveness of the event only. Your comparison to the pro-bowl is inane. In the pro-bowl the players aren't trying, they are playing with limited plays, and are restricted in what they can do (blitz, etc.). No such constraints last weekend.

The difference in beating 16 world class players and 100? I'll tell you. It's that the other 84 have little or no chance of competing for the win. That's a fact of life on the PGA tour.

Again with your silly season. I guess for you the "season" starts with the Masters and ends with the PGA, nothing else matters, correct? That tells me all I need to know about you and golf.[/quote]

The 84 most definitely have a chance. That’s incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

What does it matter anyway? Golf isn't an actual sport. It's a hobby.

133743Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he can play this well vs. a 17 man silly season field, 8 more majors is in play, IMHO... BACK

Yep, a slack field. Dustin Johnson, Justin Thomas, Fowler, Stenson, Kuchar, Spieth, Hoffman, Matsuyama.. He clearly picked all the chumps to play.

Woosh.. resort, soft course, silly season- no stakes and just 16 other guys- don't care if it was Jack and Arnie in their prime. This is a non-event, a fluff tourney- the furthest thing from a major championship. But Like I said, a subpar round and 11 fairways hit = 7 or 8 more majors for Tiger, IMO. He's "BACK" ...

Actually it isn't a soft resort course. You may want to look into that a little bit more. It was actually designed specifically for tournament play and played fairly hard. I love your "silly season" comment -- I guess you're a golf "purist"! And of curse competing and winning meant nothing to these top players, nothing at all.

I never said Woods is BACK. I'm just commenting on his ability after all of those surgeries to come back and play well for 4 days in a competitive environment. Haters gonna hate though.[/quote]

The players-not me- said the course was soft and set up for scoring. When you have guys shoot 30 for nine holes and 61-63's then its not Shinnecock Hills, and you know this. Out of curiosity, what do you call a 17 person hand picked field, made for TV, unofficial event played after the tour championship during the wrap-around? What do you call that?[/quote]
How many 61s and 63s were there among the 72 rounds? It was a competitive tournament with the top players in the world participating. Who cares that there weren't another 100 guys playing? They're just filler. Marginal players filling out the field for two days before missing the cut.This was all quality guys.

What does the wrap around have to do with anything? I get it. You hate woods. Fine. No reason to trash a solid tournament.[/quote]

You CONTINUE to miss the point. The Pro Bowl has a lot of great NFL players in it too. But it has no impact on the "regular" season, no pressure, its a fluff trip, its for money. Henrick Stenson's wife caddied for him for the first time ever last week.. yeah, he was really trying to win/be on his game- lol. The Hero World Challenge is THE definition of a silly season made for TV event. Your fawning over Tiger doesn't change that. And if you can't tell the difference in difficulty beating 16 world class players vs. 100, then I can't help you.[/quote]
jack-wad, I haven't fawned over Woods so at least try and get one or two facts straight. My comments are about the competitiveness of the event only. Your comparison to the pro-bowl is inane. In the pro-bowl the players aren't trying, they are playing with limited plays, and are restricted in what they can do (blitz, etc.). No such constraints last weekend.

The difference in beating 16 world class players and 100? I'll tell you. It's that the other 84 have little or no chance of competing for the win. That's a fact of life on the PGA tour.

Again with your silly season. I guess for you the "season" starts with the Masters and ends with the PGA, nothing else matters, correct? That tells me all I need to know about you and golf.[/quote]

The 84 most definitely have a chance. That’s incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
Sure, like VT has a chance to win a national championship in football. Just have to have the moon, sun and stars align at that moment and get hot for a week...but still very unlikely.[/quote]

It’s not as unlikely as you are making it. Let’s make a bet - how many times will a player win in 2018 on the Tour that you, CFB, and I - all regular Golf watchers - have never even heard of prior to the tourney starting. I bet it happens more than 5 times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

133743Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he can play this well vs. a 17 man silly season field, 8 more majors is in play, IMHO... BACK

Yep, a slack field. Dustin Johnson, Justin Thomas, Fowler, Stenson, Kuchar, Spieth, Hoffman, Matsuyama.. He clearly picked all the chumps to play.

Woosh.. resort, soft course, silly season- no stakes and just 16 other guys- don't care if it was Jack and Arnie in their prime. This is a non-event, a fluff tourney- the furthest thing from a major championship. But Like I said, a subpar round and 11 fairways hit = 7 or 8 more majors for Tiger, IMO. He's "BACK" ...

Actually it isn't a soft resort course. You may want to look into that a little bit more. It was actually designed specifically for tournament play and played fairly hard. I love your "silly season" comment -- I guess you're a golf "purist"! And of curse competing and winning meant nothing to these top players, nothing at all.

I never said Woods is BACK. I'm just commenting on his ability after all of those surgeries to come back and play well for 4 days in a competitive environment. Haters gonna hate though.[/quote]

The players-not me- said the course was soft and set up for scoring. When you have guys shoot 30 for nine holes and 61-63's then its not Shinnecock Hills, and you know this. Out of curiosity, what do you call a 17 person hand picked field, made for TV, unofficial event played after the tour championship during the wrap-around? What do you call that?[/quote]
How many 61s and 63s were there among the 72 rounds? It was a competitive tournament with the top players in the world participating. Who cares that there weren't another 100 guys playing? They're just filler. Marginal players filling out the field for two days before missing the cut.This was all quality guys.

What does the wrap around have to do with anything? I get it. You hate woods. Fine. No reason to trash a solid tournament.[/quote]

You CONTINUE to miss the point. The Pro Bowl has a lot of great NFL players in it too. But it has no impact on the "regular" season, no pressure, its a fluff trip, its for money. Henrick Stenson's wife caddied for him for the first time ever last week.. yeah, he was really trying to win/be on his game- lol. The Hero World Challenge is THE definition of a silly season made for TV event. Your fawning over Tiger doesn't change that. And if you can't tell the difference in difficulty beating 16 world class players vs. 100, then I can't help you.[/quote]
jack-wad, I haven't fawned over Woods so at least try and get one or two facts straight. My comments are about the competitiveness of the event only. Your comparison to the pro-bowl is inane. In the pro-bowl the players aren't trying, they are playing with limited plays, and are restricted in what they can do (blitz, etc.). No such constraints last weekend.

The difference in beating 16 world class players and 100? I'll tell you. It's that the other 84 have little or no chance of competing for the win. That's a fact of life on the PGA tour.

Again with your silly season. I guess for you the "season" starts with the Masters and ends with the PGA, nothing else matters, correct? That tells me all I need to know about you and golf.[/quote]

The 84 most definitely have a chance. That’s incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
Sure, like VT has a chance to win a national championship in football. Just have to have the moon, sun and stars align at that moment and get hot for a week...but still very unlikely.[/quote]

This is where we disagree. Golf is MUCH deeper than the 17 people at Tigers event and college football. VT doesn't have near the shot to win a national title as the 50th ranked player in the world to win Augusta or the Players this year. Nobody knew who Tommy Fleetwood was last year- He won the Dubai Chase. Jon Rahm has 1 career win, but was 5th on last years money list- a relative unknown in contention every week. 12 first time major winners recently, 9 first time winners on tour last year. This current tour is MUCH deeper than when Tiger was dominating in 2000.

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he can play this well vs. a 17 man silly season field, 8 more majors is in play, IMHO... BACK

Yep, a slack field. Dustin Johnson, Justin Thomas, Fowler, Stenson, Kuchar, Spieth, Hoffman, Matsuyama.. He clearly picked all the chumps to play.

Woosh.. resort, soft course, silly season- no stakes and just 16 other guys- don't care if it was Jack and Arnie in their prime. This is a non-event, a fluff tourney- the furthest thing from a major championship. But Like I said, a subpar round and 11 fairways hit = 7 or 8 more majors for Tiger, IMO. He's "BACK" ...

Actually it isn't a soft resort course. You may want to look into that a little bit more. It was actually designed specifically for tournament play and played fairly hard. I love your "silly season" comment -- I guess you're a golf "purist"! And of curse competing and winning meant nothing to these top players, nothing at all.

I never said Woods is BACK. I'm just commenting on his ability after all of those surgeries to come back and play well for 4 days in a competitive environment. Haters gonna hate though.

The players-not me- said the course was soft and set up for scoring. When you have guys shoot 30 for nine holes and 61-63's then its not Shinnecock Hills, and you know this. Out of curiosity, what do you call a 17 person hand picked field, made for TV, unofficial event played after the tour championship during the wrap-around? What do you call that?[/quote]
How many 61s and 63s were there among the 72 rounds? It was a competitive tournament with the top players in the world participating. Who cares that there weren't another 100 guys playing? They're just filler. Marginal players filling out the field for two days before missing the cut.This was all quality guys.

What does the wrap around have to do with anything? I get it. You hate woods. Fine. No reason to trash a solid tournament.[/quote]

You CONTINUE to miss the point. The Pro Bowl has a lot of great NFL players in it too. But it has no impact on the "regular" season, no pressure, its a fluff trip, its for money. Henrick Stenson's wife caddied for him for the first time ever last week.. yeah, he was really trying to win/be on his game- lol. The Hero World Challenge is THE definition of a silly season made for TV event. Your fawning over Tiger doesn't change that. And if you can't tell the difference in difficulty beating 16 world class players vs. 100, then I can't help you.[/quote]
jack-wad, I haven't fawned over Woods so at least try and get one or two facts straight. My comments are about the competitiveness of the event only. Your comparison to the pro-bowl is inane. In the pro-bowl the players aren't trying, they are playing with limited plays, and are restricted in what they can do (blitz, etc.). No such constraints last weekend.

The difference in beating 16 world class players and 100? I'll tell you. It's that the other 84 have little or no chance of competing for the win. That's a fact of life on the PGA tour.

Again with your silly season. I guess for you the "season" starts with the Masters and ends with the PGA, nothing else matters, correct? That tells me all I need to know about you and golf.[/quote]

The 84 most definitely have a chance. That’s incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
Sure, like VT has a chance to win a national championship in football. Just have to have the moon, sun and stars align at that moment and get hot for a week...but still very unlikely.[/quote]

This is where we disagree. Golf is MUCH deeper than the 17 people at Tigers event and college football. VT doesn't have near the shot to win a national title as the 50th ranked player in the world to win Augusta or the Players this year. Nobody knew who Tommy Fleetwood was last year- He won the Dubai Chase. Jon Rahm has 1 career win, but was 5th on last years money list- a relative unknown in contention every week. 12 first time major winners recently, 9 first time winners on tour last year. This current tour is MUCH deeper than when Tiger was dominating in 2000.[/quote]

This is mostly correct.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote: This is where we disagree. Golf is MUCH deeper than the 17 people at Tigers event and college football. VT doesn't have near the shot to win a national title as the 50th ranked player in the world to win Augusta or the Players this year. Nobody knew who Tommy Fleetwood was last year- He won the Dubai Chase. Jon Rahm has 1 career win, but was 5th on last years money list- a relative unknown in contention every week. 12 first time major winners recently, 9 first time winners on tour last year. This current tour is MUCH deeper than when Tiger was dominating in 2000.

This is mostly correct.

It's mostly unreadable because you guys have no freaking clue how to use this website after more than 6 quotes have been used. Loosers!

BG Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote: This is where we disagree. Golf is MUCH deeper than the 17 people at Tigers event and college football. VT doesn't have near the shot to win a national title as the 50th ranked player in the world to win Augusta or the Players this year. Nobody knew who Tommy Fleetwood was last year- He won the Dubai Chase. Jon Rahm has 1 career win, but was 5th on last years money list- a relative unknown in contention every week. 12 first time major winners recently, 9 first time winners on tour last year. This current tour is MUCH deeper than when Tiger was dominating in 2000.

This is mostly correct.

It's mostly unreadable because you guys have no freaking clue how to use this website after more than 6 quotes have been used. Loosers!

he's using Tiger's dominance as evidence against him that the field is much deeper now than 20 years ago. I think it's a deeper field, but not MUCH deeper. he's right about everything else.

I'd be more inclined to suggest that Tiger's field was MUCH deeper than Jacks and Arnie's field.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote: This is where we disagree. Golf is MUCH deeper than the 17 people at Tigers event and college football. VT doesn't have near the shot to win a national title as the 50th ranked player in the world to win Augusta or the Players this year. Nobody knew who Tommy Fleetwood was last year- He won the Dubai Chase. Jon Rahm has 1 career win, but was 5th on last years money list- a relative unknown in contention every week. 12 first time major winners recently, 9 first time winners on tour last year. This current tour is MUCH deeper than when Tiger was dominating in 2000.

This is mostly correct.

It's mostly unreadable because you guys have no freaking clue how to use this website after more than 6 quotes have been used. Loosers!

he's using Tiger's dominance as evidence against him that the field is much deeper now than 20 years ago. I think it's a deeper field, but not MUCH deeper. he's right about everything else.

I'd be more inclined to suggest that Tiger's field was MUCH deeper than Jacks and Arnie's field.

You're still talking about golf, right? Not Tiger's tramp bench.

HokieFanDC wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote: This is where we disagree. Golf is MUCH deeper than the 17 people at Tigers event and college football. VT doesn't have near the shot to win a national title as the 50th ranked player in the world to win Augusta or the Players this year. Nobody knew who Tommy Fleetwood was last year- He won the Dubai Chase. Jon Rahm has 1 career win, but was 5th on last years money list- a relative unknown in contention every week. 12 first time major winners recently, 9 first time winners on tour last year. This current tour is MUCH deeper than when Tiger was dominating in 2000.

This is mostly correct.

It's mostly unreadable because you guys have no freaking clue how to use this website after more than 6 quotes have been used. Loosers!

he's using Tiger's dominance as evidence against him that the field is much deeper now than 20 years ago. I think it's a deeper field, but not MUCH deeper. he's right about everything else.

I'd be more inclined to suggest that Tiger's field was MUCH deeper than Jacks and Arnie's field.

You're still talking about golf, right? Not Tiger's tramp bench.

Tiger and Arnie had A LOT in common.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he can play this well vs. a 17 man silly season field, 8 more majors is in play, IMHO... BACK

Yep, a slack field. Dustin Johnson, Justin Thomas, Fowler, Stenson, Kuchar, Spieth, Hoffman, Matsuyama.. He clearly picked all the chumps to play.

Woosh.. resort, soft course, silly season- no stakes and just 16 other guys- don't care if it was Jack and Arnie in their prime. This is a non-event, a fluff tourney- the furthest thing from a major championship. But Like I said, a subpar round and 11 fairways hit = 7 or 8 more majors for Tiger, IMO. He's "BACK" ...

Actually it isn't a soft resort course. You may want to look into that a little bit more. It was actually designed specifically for tournament play and played fairly hard. I love your "silly season" comment -- I guess you're a golf "purist"! And of curse competing and winning meant nothing to these top players, nothing at all.

I never said Woods is BACK. I'm just commenting on his ability after all of those surgeries to come back and play well for 4 days in a competitive environment. Haters gonna hate though.

The players-not me- said the course was soft and set up for scoring. When you have guys shoot 30 for nine holes and 61-63's then its not Shinnecock Hills, and you know this. Out of curiosity, what do you call a 17 person hand picked field, made for TV, unofficial event played after the tour championship during the wrap-around? What do you call that?[/quote]
How many 61s and 63s were there among the 72 rounds? It was a competitive tournament with the top players in the world participating. Who cares that there weren't another 100 guys playing? They're just filler. Marginal players filling out the field for two days before missing the cut.This was all quality guys.

What does the wrap around have to do with anything? I get it. You hate woods. Fine. No reason to trash a solid tournament.[/quote]

You CONTINUE to miss the point. The Pro Bowl has a lot of great NFL players in it too. But it has no impact on the "regular" season, no pressure, its a fluff trip, its for money. Henrick Stenson's wife caddied for him for the first time ever last week.. yeah, he was really trying to win/be on his game- lol. The Hero World Challenge is THE definition of a silly season made for TV event. Your fawning over Tiger doesn't change that. And if you can't tell the difference in difficulty beating 16 world class players vs. 100, then I can't help you.[/quote]
jack-wad, I haven't fawned over Woods so at least try and get one or two facts straight. My comments are about the competitiveness of the event only. Your comparison to the pro-bowl is inane. In the pro-bowl the players aren't trying, they are playing with limited plays, and are restricted in what they can do (blitz, etc.). No such constraints last weekend.

The difference in beating 16 world class players and 100? I'll tell you. It's that the other 84 have little or no chance of competing for the win. That's a fact of life on the PGA tour.

Again with your silly season. I guess for you the "season" starts with the Masters and ends with the PGA, nothing else matters, correct? That tells me all I need to know about you and golf.[/quote]

The 84 most definitely have a chance. That’s incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
Sure, like VT has a chance to win a national championship in football. Just have to have the moon, sun and stars align at that moment and get hot for a week...but still very unlikely.[/quote]

This is where we disagree. Golf is MUCH deeper than the 17 people at Tigers event and college football. VT doesn't have near the shot to win a national title as the 50th ranked player in the world to win Augusta or the Players this year. Nobody knew who Tommy Fleetwood was last year- He won the Dubai Chase. Jon Rahm has 1 career win, but was 5th on last years money list- a relative unknown in contention every week. 12 first time major winners recently, 9 first time winners on tour last year. This current tour is MUCH deeper than when Tiger was dominating in 2000.[/quote]

Big win by Steve Stricker and Sean Ohair in the QBE. Lexi looked great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he can play this well vs. a 17 man silly season field, 8 more majors is in play, IMHO... BACK

Yep, a slack field. Dustin Johnson, Justin Thomas, Fowler, Stenson, Kuchar, Spieth, Hoffman, Matsuyama.. He clearly picked all the chumps to play.

Woosh.. resort, soft course, silly season- no stakes and just 16 other guys- don't care if it was Jack and Arnie in their prime. This is a non-event, a fluff tourney- the furthest thing from a major championship. But Like I said, a subpar round and 11 fairways hit = 7 or 8 more majors for Tiger, IMO. He's "BACK" ...[/quote]
Actually it isn't a soft resort course. You may want to look into that a little bit more. It was actually designed specifically for tournament play and played fairly hard. I love your "silly season" comment -- I guess you're a golf "purist"! And of curse competing and winning meant nothing to these top players, nothing at all.

I never said Woods is BACK. I'm just commenting on his ability after all of those surgeries to come back and play well for 4 days in a competitive environment. Haters gonna hate though.[/quote]

The players-not me- said the course was soft and set up for scoring. When you have guys shoot 30 for nine holes and 61-63's then its not Shinnecock Hills, and you know this. Out of curiosity, what do you call a 17 person hand picked field, made for TV, unofficial event played after the tour championship during the wrap-around? What do you call that?[/quote]
How many 61s and 63s were there among the 72 rounds? It was a competitive tournament with the top players in the world participating. Who cares that there weren't another 100 guys playing? They're just filler. Marginal players filling out the field for two days before missing the cut.This was all quality guys.

What does the wrap around have to do with anything? I get it. You hate woods. Fine. No reason to trash a solid tournament.[/quote]

You CONTINUE to miss the point. The Pro Bowl has a lot of great NFL players in it too. But it has no impact on the "regular" season, no pressure, its a fluff trip, its for money. Henrick Stenson's wife caddied for him for the first time ever last week.. yeah, he was really trying to win/be on his game- lol. The Hero World Challenge is THE definition of a silly season made for TV event. Your fawning over Tiger doesn't change that. And if you can't tell the difference in difficulty beating 16 world class players vs. 100, then I can't help you.[/quote]
jack-wad, I haven't fawned over Woods so at least try and get one or two facts straight. My comments are about the competitiveness of the event only. Your comparison to the pro-bowl is inane. In the pro-bowl the players aren't trying, they are playing with limited plays, and are restricted in what they can do (blitz, etc.). No such constraints last weekend.

The difference in beating 16 world class players and 100? I'll tell you. It's that the other 84 have little or no chance of competing for the win. That's a fact of life on the PGA tour.

Again with your silly season. I guess for you the "season" starts with the Masters and ends with the PGA, nothing else matters, correct? That tells me all I need to know about you and golf.[/quote]

LOL - yep on the PGA tour ONLY the top players ever win.. lol - is that some kind of joke? We have had a dozen first time major winners over the past 4 years IIRC. You had no idea who Danny Willett was when he won the masters- none. Bubba and Phil had very off years in 2017, and were beaten many times by guys you call "filler". Bubba and Phil have 7 majors between them. Tiger has not been a factor on tour in 4 years- I guess he is "filler" too? and Tommy Fleetwood (I'm sure you have his trading card) won the race to dubai last year - the euro tour's top prize. I am a huge golf fan and follow the sport very closely...guess that means I'm a "Tiger hater" since I follow other golfers and other events besides his made for TV one. And as for your question... The "tour" starts when the official money events start (Duh) and it ends with the Tour Championship..99% of real golf fans will tell you that.[/quote]

To further CFB and my point - who here has heard of Patton Kizzire before yesterday?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've heard of him. Most people that follow golf have. He won a tournament with limited players from the top 25. Good for him.

133743Hokie wrote:I've heard of him. Most people that follow golf have. He won a tournament with limited players from the top 25. Good for him.

OK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

133743Hokie wrote:I've heard of him. Most people that follow golf have. He won a tournament with limited players from the top 25. Good for him.

Ahh, this is where you pretend that Kizzire is a "top golfer" to try to prove your point that Tiger Woods is back, because he hung with "top" guys in the Bahamas and they are the "only" guys that win... great logic, great job.

Golf nerds...

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:I've heard of him. Most people that follow golf have. He won a tournament with limited players from the top 25. Good for him.

Ahh, this is where you pretend that Kizzire is a "top golfer" to try to prove your point that Tiger Woods is back, because he hung with "top" guys in the Bahamas and they are the "only" guys that win... great logic, great job.

You have your muddled argument and logic backwards. No wonder you cant understand this.

Are you equating the caliber of player at the Sony with Tiger's tourney? Do you think Kizzire would have won if the top 20 or 30 in the rankings were playing?

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:I've heard of him. Most people that follow golf have. He won a tournament with limited players from the top 25. Good for him.

Ahh, this is where you pretend that Kizzire is a "top golfer" to try to prove your point that Tiger Woods is back, because he hung with "top" guys in the Bahamas and they are the "only" guys that win... great logic, great job.

You have your muddled argument and logic backwards. No wonder you cant understand this.

Are you equating the caliber of player at the Sony with Tiger's tourney? Do you think Kizzire would have won if the top 20 or 30 in the rankings were playing?

Let's see. One tournament is an official tour event with a full field that counts in the money standings. The other is a 17 person unofficial event held on a soft playing resort course with scores typically 20-25 under par. Given those circumstances, I am guessing Kizzire would have made a few birdies in the Bahamas and not been scared, yes.

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:I've heard of him. Most people that follow golf have. He won a tournament with limited players from the top 25. Good for him.

Ahh, this is where you pretend that Kizzire is a "top golfer" to try to prove your point that Tiger Woods is back, because he hung with "top" guys in the Bahamas and they are the "only" guys that win... great logic, great job.

You have your muddled argument and logic backwards. No wonder you cant understand this.

Are you equating the caliber of player at the Sony with Tiger's tourney? Do you think Kizzire would have won if the top 20 or 30 in the rankings were playing?

Let's see. One tournament is an official tour event with a full field that counts in the money standings. The other is a 17 person unofficial event held on a soft playing resort course with scores typically 20-25 under par. Given those circumstances, I am guessing Kizzire would have made a few birdies in the Bahamas and not been scared, yes.

I expect Kizzire would have made a few birdies, or more, in the Bahamas. He certainly made a few on the resort course the Sony was played on. The difference is the "full field" at the Sony was light on top talent, unlike the Bahamas. I doubt he would have sniffed top ten in the Bahamas against that field. Conversely, if all of the Bahamas field had played the Sony, he again doesn't make top ten.

Again, he's a good golfer. But there is a reason the bulk of the tour clamors to play all the events that the top guys are passing on. Hint: they actually have a chance to win or finish top ten.

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:I've heard of him. Most people that follow golf have. He won a tournament with limited players from the top 25. Good for him.

Ahh, this is where you pretend that Kizzire is a "top golfer" to try to prove your point that Tiger Woods is back, because he hung with "top" guys in the Bahamas and they are the "only" guys that win... great logic, great job.

You have your muddled argument and logic backwards. No wonder you cant understand this.

Are you equating the caliber of player at the Sony with Tiger's tourney? Do you think Kizzire would have won if the top 20 or 30 in the rankings were playing?

Let's see. One tournament is an official tour event with a full field that counts in the money standings. The other is a 17 person unofficial event held on a soft playing resort course with scores typically 20-25 under par. Given those circumstances, I am guessing Kizzire would have made a few birdies in the Bahamas and not been scared, yes.

I expect Kizzire would have made a few birdies, or more, in the Bahamas. He certainly made a few on the resort course the Sony was played on. The difference is the "full field" at the Sony was light on top talent, unlike the Bahamas. I doubt he would have sniffed top ten in the Bahamas against that field. Conversely, if all of the Bahamas field had played the Sony, he again doesn't make top ten.

Again, he's a good golfer. But there is a reason the bulk of the tour clamors to play all the events that the top guys are passing on. Hint: they actually have a chance to win or finish top ten.

You keep pushing this narrative, hoping one day it will be true. It's laughable. There were 9 first time winners on tour last year alone- and no, not all won the Zurich classic or John Deere. There have been 14 different major champions over the last 18 majors played- the BEST fields in the world- bar none, yet a wide variety of golfers have won at the highest level. You pretending that the PGA tour is comparable to the Patriots and Golden State is simply not true. There is huge parity now- even in non fluff events like the Bahamas. Phil Michelson has not won in 4 plus years. McElroy hasn't won a major since 2014- he is in the prime of his career. Hell even in Tigers last two true competitive major sunday rounds, he was beaten by journeyman YE Yang, and a 46 year year old qualifier nobody- Rocco Mediate- took him to a Monday playoff. You are simply wrong stating that only the "top" guys win on tour. No need to dig yourself any deeper hole- just look at the facts/results.

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:I've heard of him. Most people that follow golf have. He won a tournament with limited players from the top 25. Good for him.

Ahh, this is where you pretend that Kizzire is a "top golfer" to try to prove your point that Tiger Woods is back, because he hung with "top" guys in the Bahamas and they are the "only" guys that win... great logic, great job.

You have your muddled argument and logic backwards. No wonder you cant understand this.

Are you equating the caliber of player at the Sony with Tiger's tourney? Do you think Kizzire would have won if the top 20 or 30 in the rankings were playing?

Let's see. One tournament is an official tour event with a full field that counts in the money standings. The other is a 17 person unofficial event held on a soft playing resort course with scores typically 20-25 under par. Given those circumstances, I am guessing Kizzire would have made a few birdies in the Bahamas and not been scared, yes.

I expect Kizzire would have made a few birdies, or more, in the Bahamas. He certainly made a few on the resort course the Sony was played on. The difference is the "full field" at the Sony was light on top talent, unlike the Bahamas. I doubt he would have sniffed top ten in the Bahamas against that field. Conversely, if all of the Bahamas field had played the Sony, he again doesn't make top ten.

Again, he's a good golfer. But there is a reason the bulk of the tour clamors to play all the events that the top guys are passing on. Hint: they actually have a chance to win or finish top ten.

You keep pushing this narrative, hoping one day it will be true. It's laughable. There were 9 first time winners on tour last year alone- and no, not all won the Zurich classic or John Deere. There have been 14 different major champions over the last 18 majors played- the BEST fields in the world- bar none, yet a wide variety of golfers have won at the highest level. You pretending that the PGA tour is comparable to the Patriots and Golden State is simply not true. There is huge parity now- even in non fluff events like the Bahamas. Phil Michelson has not won in 4 plus years. McElroy hasn't won a major since 2014- he is in the prime of his career. Hell even in Tigers last two true competitive major sunday rounds, he was beaten by journeyman YE Yang, and a 46 year year old qualifier nobody- Rocco Mediate- took him to a Monday playoff. You are simply wrong stating that only the "top" guys win on tour. No need to dig yourself any deeper hole- just look at the facts/results.

This is all correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:I've heard of him. Most people that follow golf have. He won a tournament with limited players from the top 25. Good for him.

Ahh, this is where you pretend that Kizzire is a "top golfer" to try to prove your point that Tiger Woods is back, because he hung with "top" guys in the Bahamas and they are the "only" guys that win... great logic, great job.

You have your muddled argument and logic backwards. No wonder you cant understand this.

Are you equating the caliber of player at the Sony with Tiger's tourney? Do you think Kizzire would have won if the top 20 or 30 in the rankings were playing?

Let's see. One tournament is an official tour event with a full field that counts in the money standings. The other is a 17 person unofficial event held on a soft playing resort course with scores typically 20-25 under par. Given those circumstances, I am guessing Kizzire would have made a few birdies in the Bahamas and not been scared, yes.

I expect Kizzire would have made a few birdies, or more, in the Bahamas. He certainly made a few on the resort course the Sony was played on. The difference is the "full field" at the Sony was light on top talent, unlike the Bahamas. I doubt he would have sniffed top ten in the Bahamas against that field. Conversely, if all of the Bahamas field had played the Sony, he again doesn't make top ten.

Again, he's a good golfer. But there is a reason the bulk of the tour clamors to play all the events that the top guys are passing on. Hint: they actually have a chance to win or finish top ten.

You keep pushing this narrative, hoping one day it will be true. It's laughable. There were 9 first time winners on tour last year alone- and no, not all won the Zurich classic or John Deere. There have been 14 different major champions over the last 18 majors played- the BEST fields in the world- bar none, yet a wide variety of golfers have won at the highest level. You pretending that the PGA tour is comparable to the Patriots and Golden State is simply not true. There is huge parity now- even in non fluff events like the Bahamas. Phil Michelson has not won in 4 plus years. McElroy hasn't won a major since 2014- he is in the prime of his career. Hell even in Tigers last two true competitive major sunday rounds, he was beaten by journeyman YE Yang, and a 46 year year old qualifier nobody- Rocco Mediate- took him to a Monday playoff. You are simply wrong stating that only the "top" guys win on tour. No need to dig yourself any deeper hole- just look at the facts/results.

9 first time winners in what, 42 or more events? Yep, it's wide open out there. There is parity, but it's at the top. Those arenthe guys that are winning or consistently in the top ten. Not the one off winners, many of whom won on off events (when majors or WGCs are being played). You keep convincing yourself that there is parity all the way down the line on the tour if that makes you feel better. But the data say otherwise.

Clearly I'll never change your mind on this and you definitly won't change mine so I'm done with this thread. Go ahead and respond one more time and get it all out. I won't be reading or replying. It's been fun.

Why would anyone care about Tiger Woods?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

133743Hokie wrote:You keep convincing yourself that there is parity all the way down the line on the tour if that makes you feel better. But the data say otherwise.

Can you use the data to make that compelling argument?

Bay_area_Hokie wrote:Why would anyone care about Tiger Woods?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He moves the needle for the casual golf fan.. People that watch the masters on sunday and nothing else all year. They love Tiger and think that golf would disappear without him. They are front runners and don't follow the sport. But they tune in when Tiger is playing. Hard corps golf fans could not care less about the 400th ranked player in the world right now.