Tiger is losing steam

[Ironhead]

I do not want to see the arrogant bastard ever win anything again. I am happy to see him in the state he is in now(healthy enough to live life, spend his money, but no longer able to play or win). He brought so much of it on himself.

Now to the protectors of this guy, before the race card is played ...
- Micheal Jordan is/was my favorite basketball player. Loved watching him play.
- Mohammad Ali was the greatest and one of my childhood heroes.

 

[red]

Woods has won 14 major championships. But he's only won 2 in the last 3 years. He turns 34 in December.

Jack Nicklaus has 18 major championships. I don't think Woods is going to catch him. Jack will always be the greatest.

tiger withdraws from us open- doesn't look good to catch jack.

 

[maurice93]

In light of Tiger pulling out after a 6 over front 9 yesterday, it made me remember and resurrect this thread.

Love reading the posts of the "oh so certain, no way Tiger can fail" acolytes.

I especially enjoy reading the posts of maurice and Asterix.

I will still even admit anything can happen and he may yet come back to former glory. The point was to maybe hear those people who refused to acknowledge that it was even a reasonable possibility, recant their statements.

I might even take 10:1 odds from Asterix now.

Shack, what exactly do you want me to recant? I stated items that were FACTS in November 2009 (before the "incident")

I had four posts on this thread.

1. "Tiger is the greatest golfer ever". I still beleive that to be the case given depth of competition in his era, and peak performance. If I thought he was the greatest golfer ever with 14 majors, obviously my opinion is not based on total majors. So I can't recant that opinion - I can see how someone thinks Jack is the best.

2. "Tiger will win at least one major in 2010" - That was a well supported prediction. He had been historically dominant on all four of the courses that were in the major rotation in 2010 and was dominant in 2008 and 2009 winning 11 of 24 events. This would be like my saying I made a bad play throwing all in with pocket aces.

3. "Tiger is not slowing down". I constructed reasonable factual analysis showing Tiger was not slowing down in 2008 and 2009 and thought using majors was too small a sample size to make such assessment. He won 11 of 24 events in that period. He held on to the world number one ranking for most of 2010, despite being a non factor for most of 2010. That gives you quite the indication of how successful and dominant Tiger was in 2008 and 2009. Why would I recant something that was factually correct at the time I said it. He was not slowing down.


4. "Questor is a Douche who picks on grammar when he knows he can't argue the merits of another post". Not going to recant that. I then walked away from the thread as I said I would.

After these posts, you made the brilliant commentary that he is going to slow down at some point. Bravo, Shack. Of course he is going to slow down at "Some point" - pretty easy comment to make with no time frame attached. Of course my argument was that his performance was not slowing down in 2008 and 2009. Two totally unrelated concepts.

So I have nothing to recant for any of the comments I made in this thread. Sorry.

 

[shack]

Shack, what exactly do you want me to recant? I stated items that were FACTS in November 2009 (before the "incident")

I had four posts on this thread.

1. "Tiger is the greatest golfer ever". I still beleive that to be the case given depth of competition in his era, and peak performance. If I thought he was the greatest golfer ever with 14 majors, obviously my opinion is not based on total majors. So I can't recant that opinion - I can see how someone thinks Jack is the best.

2. "Tiger will win at least one major in 2010" - That was a well supported prediction. He had been historically dominant on all four of the courses that were in the major rotation in 2010 and was dominant in 2008 and 2009 winning 11 of 24 events. This would be like my saying I made a bad play throwing all in with pocket aces.

3. "Tiger is not slowing down". I constructed reasonable factual analysis showing Tiger was not slowing down in 2008 and 2009 and thought using majors was too small a sample size to make such assessment. He won 11 of 24 events in that period. He held on to the world number one ranking for most of 2010, despite being a non factor for most of 2010. That gives you quite the indication of how successful and dominant Tiger was in 2008 and 2009. Why would I recant something that was factually correct at the time I said it. He was not slowing down.


4. "Questor is a Douche who picks on grammar when he knows he can't argue the merits of another post". Not going to recant that. I then walked away from the thread as I said I would.

After these posts, you made the brilliant commentary that he is going to slow down at some point. Bravo, Shack. Of course he is going to slow down at "Some point" - pretty easy comment to make with no time frame attached. Of course my argument was that his performance was not slowing down in 2008 and 2009. Two totally unrelated concepts.

So I have nothing to recant for any of the comments I made in this thread. Sorry.

My point was that the Tiger lovers seemed not to be able to even entertain the possibility that he might not catch Jack. It seemed to be a god given certainty.

Even two years ago, if you read my posts, you will see I was saying that he probably would catch Jack, but that you just never know for sure. If you go back and read the posts we were characterized not as realists but as Tiger "haters" for daring to say beating Jack was not a slam dunk.

My point, once again, was that his stats were history and they guaranteed nothing, which is exactly what he has won since then. All I was looking for was for some of the Tiger sycophants to admit, maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't beat Jack's record. None of them could bring themselves to say it was a possibility. So in my mind, a recant would be admitting he was not a slam dunk in spite of what he had done up to that point.

 

[maurice93]

I never claimed he would for sure beat Jack - if I was a betting man I would have said yes, but not a certainty because there are too many variables. Obviously my "bet" would be different now, so my senses were wrong at the time.

That being said, you are correct there are many that said for sure guaranteed he would break it (on here, media).

 

[shack]

I never claimed he would for sure beat Jack - if I was a betting man I would have said yes,

And I wouldn't have bet against you (unless you gave me great odds).

 

[nht]

The only reason Tiger gets grief is because of the colour of his skin. If he were white, all the apologists would be out in full force.

 

[maurice93]

I don't believe that Tiger was forced to play that round at Sawgrass. The PGA may have asked him to give it a try, but there is no way they outright forced him.

 

[maurice93]

The only reason Tiger gets grief is because of the colour of his skin. If he were white, all the apologists would be out in full force.

For some yes (people that call him "Tigger" are dead give aways), but I don't think it is for the clear majority. I would say for many though, they just got tired of him - its pretty common for the elite athlete to be hated due to overexposure. Not many dominant athletes are good guys, so if you get alot of exposure, its easy for the hate to build.

Phil Mickelson is also extremely divisive. Very popular, but yet hated with a passion by many. If you hate him, its clear how he is a total fraud.