United We Stand - uwsboard.com

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:Tiger is good for the game. His success is remarkable.

.

It is until the guy whose been to the driving range twice watches Tiger, and decides he could break 90 at the local muni if he just took a few more practice swings and lines up his putts like Tiger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and also until the world's largest sports outlet doesn't discuss or cover the top 31 finishers at a major championship.

If you’re a media organization, discussing Tiger over every other golfer is better for your business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nolanvt wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:Tiger is good for the game. His success is remarkable.

.

It is until the guy whose been to the driving range twice watches Tiger, and decides he could break 90 at the local muni if he just took a few more practice swings and lines up his putts like Tiger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and also until the world's largest sports outlet doesn't discuss or cover the top 31 finishers at a major championship.

If you’re a media organization, discussing Tiger over every other golfer is better for your business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but ESPN doesn't cover "golf" - not in the slightest. they cover pop culture within golf when its there..they ignore the sport entirely when its not.

CFB Apologist wrote:

nolanvt wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:Tiger is good for the game. His success is remarkable.

.

It is until the guy whose been to the driving range twice watches Tiger, and decides he could break 90 at the local muni if he just took a few more practice swings and lines up his putts like Tiger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and also until the world's largest sports outlet doesn't discuss or cover the top 31 finishers at a major championship.

If you’re a media organization, discussing Tiger over every other golfer is better for your business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but ESPN doesn't cover "golf" - not in the slightest. they cover pop culture within golf when its there..they ignore the sport entirely when its not.

Nobody except the diehards cares about golf before the Masters, or after the U.S. Open.* That's not an ESPN thing. It's just an IWII thing.

*Unless Tiger is in position to win.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

nolanvt wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:Tiger is good for the game. His success is remarkable.

.

It is until the guy whose been to the driving range twice watches Tiger, and decides he could break 90 at the local muni if he just took a few more practice swings and lines up his putts like Tiger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and also until the world's largest sports outlet doesn't discuss or cover the top 31 finishers at a major championship.

If you’re a media organization, discussing Tiger over every other golfer is better for your business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but ESPN doesn't cover "golf" - not in the slightest. they cover pop culture within golf when its there..they ignore the sport entirely when its not.

Nobody except the diehards cares about golf before the Masters, or after the U.S. Open.* That's not an ESPN thing. It's just an IWII thing.

*Unless Tiger is in position to win.

Good, since ESPN doesn't care about 3/4th of the season or anybpdy but Tiger, I don't have to take anything they say about golf seriously or attach any credibility to it.

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

nolanvt wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: It is until the guy whose been to the driving range twice watches Tiger, and decides he could break 90 at the local muni if he just took a few more practice swings and lines up his putts like Tiger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and also until the world's largest sports outlet doesn't discuss or cover the top 31 finishers at a major championship.

If you’re a media organization, discussing Tiger over every other golfer is better for your business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but ESPN doesn't cover "golf" - not in the slightest. they cover pop culture within golf when its there..they ignore the sport entirely when its not.

Nobody except the diehards cares about golf before the Masters, or after the U.S. Open.* That's not an ESPN thing. It's just an IWII thing.

*Unless Tiger is in position to win.

Good, since ESPN doesn't care about 3/4th of the season or anybpdy but Tiger, I don't have to take anything they say about golf seriously or attach any credibility to it.

I’m OK with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CFB Apologist wrote:

Mcl3 Hokie wrote:There is no debate that Tiger revolutionized the game. He’s an excellent player that made it cool for athletes to play golf. When Tiger first joined the tour, most of the players hit the bar after the round. With his athleticism kicking the crap out of them, those guys changed going to the the bar into going to the gym.

Tiger’s still a top 10 talent, but in his run of wins, he didn’t compete against guys that could hit it just as long as he could. Length intimidates, but this new breed of golfer can hit it just as far. So, Tiger is back, but he may never win another major because of the level of golf he brought to the game.

I agree with this 100%. I think he will play well again, and win on tour- probable this year. Is he going to be "Tiger" again? no, not in my opinion. He admitted this week that he and Phil "don't have that many left" in terms of major chances. That is not the Tiger Woods that dominated golf and said he wouldn't show up unless he could win. And despite 123456hokie being the only person on earth to disagree- golf is deeper and more competitive now than it's ever been. There is more parity, there are more top flight international and now asian players. The field is much deeper than when he won the masters in 1997. Speith shot two rounds under 67 this week and finished 3rd. David Toms, a mentally weak Duval, DA points, Davis love this is not.

Well, at least you've changed your tune and recognize that he may actually win a tournament this year. That's progress. Now if we could just get you to not twist people's words we'd be alright.

Now which was it. A strong field of no names or a weak field of name players finishing top 10? Hard to keep your thoughts straight on this one.

CFB Apologist wrote:

nolanvt wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:Tiger is good for the game. His success is remarkable.

.

It is until the guy whose been to the driving range twice watches Tiger, and decides he could break 90 at the local muni if he just took a few more practice swings and lines up his putts like Tiger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and also until the world's largest sports outlet doesn't discuss or cover the top 31 finishers at a major championship.

If you’re a media organization, discussing Tiger over every other golfer is better for your business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but ESPN doesn't cover "golf" - not in the slightest. they cover pop culture within golf when its there..they ignore the sport entirely when its not.

As they should


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Serious question. What has he changed in his swing such that he won’t need another surgery in a year or two?

The body usually doesn’t get back to as good as it was before the damage, after surgery. So why won’t he just be injured again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bay_area_Hokie wrote:Serious question. What has he changed in his swing such that he won’t need another surgery in a year or two?

The body usually doesn’t get back to as good as it was before the damage, after surgery. So why won’t he just be injured again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He has a more traditional swing now. He used to clear his hips violently. I don’t think he has the swing speed and relative distance against the field that he had in his hey day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Bay_area_Hokie wrote:Serious question. What has he changed in his swing such that he won’t need another surgery in a year or two?

The body usually doesn’t get back to as good as it was before the damage, after surgery. So why won’t he just be injured again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He has a more traditional swing now. He used to clear his hips violently. I don’t think he has the swing speed and relative distance against the field that he had in his hey day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, don't know all the details but it is more traditional. He isn't popping his left knee like before (several knee injuries) and isn't snapping his back un-torquing like before. Apparently he's his own swing coach now from what I've read. That said he still has one of the fastest swing speeds out there, which is surprising.

133743Hokie wrote:There is no debate that Tiger revolutionized the game. He’s an excellent player that made it cool for athletes to play golf. When Tiger first joined the tour, most of the players hit the bar after the round. With his athleticism kicking the crap out of them, those guys changed going to the the bar into going to the gym.

Tiger’s still a top 10 talent, but in his run of wins, he didn’t compete against guys that could hit it just as long as he could. Length intimidates, but this new breed of golfer can hit it just as far. So, Tiger is back, but he may never win another major because of the level of golf he brought to the game.

I agree with this 100%. I think he will play well again, and win on tour- probable this year. Is he going to be "Tiger" again? no, not in my opinion. He admitted this week that he and Phil "don't have that many left" in terms of major chances. That is not the Tiger Woods that dominated golf and said he wouldn't show up unless he could win. And despite 123456hokie being the only person on earth to disagree- golf is deeper and more competitive now than it's ever been. There is more parity, there are more top flight international and now asian players. The field is much deeper than when he won the masters in 1997. Speith shot two rounds under 67 this week and finished 3rd. David Toms, a mentally weak Duval, DA points, Davis love this is not.[/quote]
Well, at least you've changed your tune and recognize that he may actually win a tournament this year. That's progress. Now if we could just get you to not twist people's words we'd be alright.

Now which was it. A strong field of no names or a weak field of name players finishing top 10? Hard to keep your thoughts straight on this one.[/quote]

Nobody is twisting your words. You were wrong about the Bahamas indicating Tiger was " back" , and you are wrong about parity on tour. Flat wrong on both. I could post that I look exactly like Brad Pitt 100 times. Same thing you are doing. And link me to where I said Tiger wouldn't win an event on tour this year. Thanks.

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:There is no debate that Tiger revolutionized the game. He’s an excellent player that made it cool for athletes to play golf. When Tiger first joined the tour, most of the players hit the bar after the round. With his athleticism kicking the crap out of them, those guys changed going to the the bar into going to the gym.

Tiger’s still a top 10 talent, but in his run of wins, he didn’t compete against guys that could hit it just as long as he could. Length intimidates, but this new breed of golfer can hit it just as far. So, Tiger is back, but he may never win another major because of the level of golf he brought to the game.

I agree with this 100%. I think he will play well again, and win on tour- probable this year. Is he going to be "Tiger" again? no, not in my opinion. He admitted this week that he and Phil "don't have that many left" in terms of major chances. That is not the Tiger Woods that dominated golf and said he wouldn't show up unless he could win. And despite 123456hokie being the only person on earth to disagree- golf is deeper and more competitive now than it's ever been. There is more parity, there are more top flight international and now asian players. The field is much deeper than when he won the masters in 1997. Speith shot two rounds under 67 this week and finished 3rd. David Toms, a mentally weak Duval, DA points, Davis love this is not.

Well, at least you've changed your tune and recognize that he may actually win a tournament this year. That's progress. Now if we could just get you to not twist people's words we'd be alright.

Now which was it. A strong field of no names or a weak field of name players finishing top 10? Hard to keep your thoughts straight on this one.[/quote]

Nobody is twisting your words. You were wrong about the Bahamas indicating Tiger was " back" , and you are wrong about parity on tour. Flat wrong on both. I could post that I look exactly like Brad Pitt 100 times. Same thing you are doing. And link me to where I said Tiger wouldn't win an event on tour this year. Thanks.[/quote]
Tiger is back being competitive in traditional events. So you dispute this?

And there are still about 20 to 25 players that dominate the game, i.e win one or more times every year and/or consistently finish top 15 or so week after week. There are always going to be times when someone rises up, plays lights out, and wins. That doesn't mean there is parity.

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:There is no debate that Tiger revolutionized the game. He’s an

I agree with this 100%. I think he will play well again, and win on tour- probable this year. Is he going to be "Tiger" again? no, not in my opinion. He admitted this week that he and Phil "don't have that many left" in terms of major chances. That is not the Tiger Woods that dominated golf and said he wouldn't show up unless he could win. And despite 123456hokie being the only person on earth to disagree- golf is deeper and more competitive now than it's ever been. There is more parity, there are more top flight international and now asian players. The field is much deeper than when he won the masters in 1997. Speith shot two rounds under 67 this week and finished 3rd. David Toms, a mentally weak Duval, DA points, Davis love this is not.

Well, at least you've changed your tune and recognize that he may actually win a tournament this year. That's progress. Now if we could just get you to not twist people's words we'd be alright.

Now which was it. A strong field of no names or a weak field of name players finishing top 10? Hard to keep your thoughts straight on this one.

Nobody is twisting your words. You were wrong about the Bahamas indicating Tiger was " back" , and you are wrong about parity on tour. Flat wrong on both. I could post that I look exactly like Brad Pitt 100 times. Same thing you are doing. And link me to where I said Tiger wouldn't win an event on tour this year. Thanks.

Tiger is back being competitive in traditional events. So you dispute this?

And there are still about 20 to 25 players that dominate the game, i.e win one or more times every year and/or consistently finish top 15 or so week after week. There are always going to be times when someone rises up, plays lights out, and wins. That doesn't mean there is parity.[/quote]

I look exactly like Brad Pitt

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:There is no debate that Tiger revolutionized the game. He’s an

I agree with this 100%. I think he will play well again, and win on tour- probable this year. Is he going to be "Tiger" again? no, not in my opinion. He admitted this week that he and Phil "don't have that many left" in terms of major chances. That is not the Tiger Woods that dominated golf and said he wouldn't show up unless he could win. And despite 123456hokie being the only person on earth to disagree- golf is deeper and more competitive now than it's ever been. There is more parity, there are more top flight international and now asian players. The field is much deeper than when he won the masters in 1997. Speith shot two rounds under 67 this week and finished 3rd. David Toms, a mentally weak Duval, DA points, Davis love this is not.

Well, at least you've changed your tune and recognize that he may actually win a tournament this year. That's progress. Now if we could just get you to not twist people's words we'd be alright.

Now which was it. A strong field of no names or a weak field of name players finishing top 10? Hard to keep your thoughts straight on this one.

Nobody is twisting your words. You were wrong about the Bahamas indicating Tiger was " back" , and you are wrong about parity on tour. Flat wrong on both. I could post that I look exactly like Brad Pitt 100 times. Same thing you are doing. And link me to where I said Tiger wouldn't win an event on tour this year. Thanks.

Tiger is back being competitive in traditional events. So you dispute this?

And there are still about 20 to 25 players that dominate the game, i.e win one or more times every year and/or consistently finish top 15 or so week after week. There are always going to be times when someone rises up, plays lights out, and wins. That doesn't mean there is parity.

I look exactly like Brad Pitt[/quote]
Usually Pitt wipes the egg off his face before going out in public.

I only watch the British Open.

Major Kong wrote:I only watch the British Open.

Ahem, the Open Championship. They take their golf seriously over there.

133743Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:I only watch the British Open.

Ahem, the Open Championship. They take their golf seriously over there.

I think St. Andrews should be on any golfer’s bucket list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:I only watch the British Open.

Ahem, the Open Championship. They take their golf seriously over there.

I think St. Andrews should be on any golfer’s bucket list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Played there two years ago, along with the New Course, Kings Barnes and Carnoustie, then went to the west coast for Royal Troon, Prestwick and Western Gailes. 7 courses in 7 days.

I liked Northern Ireland better. Royal Portrush and Royal County Down are two spectacular courses.

133743Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:I only watch the British Open.

Ahem, the Open Championship. They take their golf seriously over there.

I think St. Andrews should be on any golfer’s bucket list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Played there two years ago, along with the New Course, Kings Barnes and Carnoustie, then went to the west coast for Royal Troon, Prestwick and Western Gailes. 7 courses in 7 days.

Mcl3 Hokie wrote:I liked Northern Ireland better. Royal Portrush and Royal County Down are two spectacular courses.

133743Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:I only watch the British Open.

Ahem, the Open Championship. They take their golf seriously over there.

I think St. Andrews should be on any golfer’s bucket list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Played there two years ago, along with the New Course, Kings Barnes and Carnoustie, then went to the west coast for Royal Troon, Prestwick and Western Gailes. 7 courses in 7 days.

I've heard Ireland is more picturesque

133743Hokie wrote:

Mcl3 Hokie wrote:I liked Northern Ireland better. Royal Portrush and Royal County Down are two spectacular courses.

133743Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:I only watch the British Open.

Ahem, the Open Championship. They take their golf seriously over there.

I think St. Andrews should be on any golfer’s bucket list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Played there two years ago, along with the New Course, Kings Barnes and Carnoustie, then went to the west coast for Royal Troon, Prestwick and Western Gailes. 7 courses in 7 days.

I've heard Ireland is more picturesque

Buddy of mine is playing Waterville, ballybunion, and Lahinche this week. Trip to Dublin with golf clubs is going to have to happen.

And Tiger is back CFB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:I liked Northern Ireland better. Royal Portrush and Royal County Down are two spectacular courses.

133743Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:I only watch the British Open.

Ahem, the Open Championship. They take their golf seriously over there.

I think St. Andrews should be on any golfer’s bucket list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Played there two years ago, along with the New Course, Kings Barnes and Carnoustie, then went to the west coast for Royal Troon, Prestwick and Western Gailes. 7 courses in 7 days.

I've heard Ireland is more picturesque[/quote]

Buddy of mine is playing Waterville, ballybunion, and Lahinche this week. Trip to Dublin with golf clubs is going to have to happen.

And Tiger is back CFB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Agree. Finishing 11th with one great round and losing to Webb Simpson, a guy who has not won on tour in 5 years brings 20-22 majors in play for Tiger. He's back, and will win 2-3 majors this year based on his Saturday round at the Players.

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:I liked Northern Ireland better. Royal Portrush and Royal County Down are two spectacular courses.

133743Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:I only watch the British Open.

Ahem, the Open Championship. They take their golf seriously over there.

I think St. Andrews should be on any golfer’s bucket list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Played there two years ago, along with the New Course, Kings Barnes and Carnoustie, then went to the west coast for Royal Troon, Prestwick and Western Gailes. 7 courses in 7 days.

I've heard Ireland is more picturesque

Buddy of mine is playing Waterville, ballybunion, and Lahinche this week. Trip to Dublin with golf clubs is going to have to happen.

And Tiger is back CFB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Agree. Finishing 11th with one great round and losing to Webb Simpson, a guy who has not won on tour in 5 years brings 20-22 majors in play for Tiger. He's back, and will win 2-3 majors this year based on his Saturday round at the Players.[/quote]

I'll be watching to see what he does at Shinnecock.

btw - was able to play Montauk Downs this past weekend. Excellent course run by same group that runs Bethpage. Both exceptional values. I walked for $48 during the weekend and played a 3 hour round.