Tiger dumps Steve Williams as caddie / PGA Championship thread

[hurleyfor3]

Has anyone else noticed that there are commercials every 2-3 minutes? By far the worst tv coverage of a golf tourney I've ever seen. Basically unwatchable.

I'm pretty sure I now have whatever the hell "Low T" is.

[gw67]

I was one of those folks who turned off the TV when Bradley tripled the 15th giving Dufner a five stroke lead. After taking the dog for a walk, I turned it back on to see Bradley birdie the 17th. I then stayed to watch a terrific finish. It was tough to see Dufner struggle but Bradley showed a terrific all around game and some mental toughness to win. I suspect we just saw the beginning of a good career for Keegan.

With regard to Woods, I am not a fan but consider him the best I’ve ever seen although I grew up during Jack’s era, saw him play several times; and admire him as a person and golfer. I recognize that he brings a bunch of folks (Tigerbots?) to the course and TV who don’t know the difference between a fairway wood and a sand wedge, but the amount of time that the networks and Golf Channel spend on his play when good golf is being played by others is annoying. I expect him to come back but the wave of golfers between 20 and 35 will not be easily intimidated and he may have a tougher time winning.

gw67

[duke79]

Has anyone else noticed that there are commercials every 2-3 minutes? By far the worst tv coverage of a golf tourney I've ever seen. Basically unwatchable.

Drives me crazy too. I have started recording these golf telecasts on my DVR and then watching it somewhat delayed so I can fast forward through the commercials. Using the DVR, a five-hour broadcast becomes about 2.5 to 3 hours of actually watching the golf action. It makes you appreciate the Masters all that much more, as I believe Augusta National has negotiated with CBS that they can show only 4 minutes (I think) of commercials per hour. I'm guessing that with both the US Open and the PGA, there are about 20 minutes of commercials per hour (and maybe more).

[sporthenry]

My record on Tiger is pretty well established here. I've never liked Tiger, but I wouldn't say I hate him, either. I acknowledge his prominence has made golf more popular, but in the same way college basketball would have more fans if unc won the next 10 national championships. Are you sure these are the people you want around?

Well I can't argue too much if you are one of the original guys who disliked Tiger. My main complaint was for these people who all of a sudden hate Tiger or hate the attention given to him. It didn't appear that the coverage was lost too much by covering Tiger. If anything, people complaining about that coverage should also complain about Rory McIlroy getting 30 minutes on TV to watch him ice his wrist.

But I digress, the UNC argument isn't exactly best b/c we can't take the UNC out of UNC. First, college basketball is different than golf in that fans have a team. In golf, at least for me, you might have a few favorites but at the end of the day, there are only 3-4 guys out of 150 that are there so you become very fluid with who you like or don't like unless its a Tiger or a Phil who is at the top more often than not. So I would tweak your comparison to say Duke basketball is on probation and Butler or Stanford or whoever wins 10 titles in a row. Sure some people would be upset b/c Butler would no longer be the underdog but perhaps this is a comment on why we individually watch sports. I think everyone wants to watch greatness and if it comes in the form of bordering on the greatest of all time then I wouldn't mind the attention given to the team. I wasn't around for Wooden's stretch but I think we would all like to witness a part of that. And how many people know the 2 teams between '64 and '75 who won titles? What if the cameras weren't paying attention during the 2008 US Open? We would have missed one of the greatest performances.

So if the cameras follow Tiger around a bit more on Thursday and Friday then Dufner, I'm not going to complain b/c Woods provides the potential for something Dufner doesn't. Then on Sunday, they can put on the crews on the contenders. But to cry about the attention to Woods is like to complain that the Red Sox, Yanks, Heat, Lakers, etc get all the prime time games even when they aren't playing well meanwhile the Pacers could be winning 8 straight games but get no coverage. It is just how it is. It is why Duke still gets national TV games when they are 22-11 and lose in the first round on the NCAA tournament. B/c as bad as that Duke team was, people know what they are capable of and if you were going to pick 1 #6 seed to win a title that year, I would think Duke would be the favorite. Sure Woods coverage goes over the top a bit but it doesn't appear that they miss too much of the good golf.

And finally, you bring up his personal life being so scripted and I agree it would be similar to MJ or even Kobe. If you are a superstar, you either have that scripted lifestyle much like a celebrity or you become LeBron. So I agree that the guy had issues just like most superstars have issues b/c they are trying to live a lie but that lie is part of what makes them the superstar. I agree that Tiger's antics were a bit over the top but you could say the same about MJ's sportsmanship or Kobe's first words after his title was that he had more titles than Shaq. They are driven by that something which puts them in the discussion as the G.O.A.T. Heck, as Phil Mickelson gets more attention, I've heard from multiple people at tournaments that he is a jerk and someone who kids shouldn't emulate either. It is tough to try to tell what types of people the earlier superstars were b/c the media is completely different but Babe cheated on his wife, Ty Cobb was Ty Cobb, Ted Williams had many run ins with the media, etc. So it almost appears that society creates these monsters.

[rasputin]

Well I can't argue too much if you are one of the original guys who disliked Tiger. My main complaint was for these people who all of a sudden hate Tiger or hate the attention given to him. It didn't appear that the coverage was lost too much by covering Tiger. If anything, people complaining about that coverage should also complain about Rory McIlroy getting 30 minutes on TV to watch him ice his wrist.

But I digress, the UNC argument isn't exactly best b/c we can't take the UNC out of UNC. First, college basketball is different than golf in that fans have a team. In golf, at least for me, you might have a few favorites but at the end of the day, there are only 3-4 guys out of 150 that are there so you become very fluid with who you like or don't like unless its a Tiger or a Phil who is at the top more often than not. So I would tweak your comparison to say Duke basketball is on probation and Butler or Stanford or whoever wins 10 titles in a row. Sure some people would be upset b/c Butler would no longer be the underdog but perhaps this is a comment on why we individually watch sports. I think everyone wants to watch greatness and if it comes in the form of bordering on the greatest of all time then I wouldn't mind the attention given to the team. I wasn't around for Wooden's stretch but I think we would all like to witness a part of that. And how many people know the 2 teams between '64 and '75 who won titles? What if the cameras weren't paying attention during the 2008 US Open? We would have missed one of the greatest performances.

So if the cameras follow Tiger around a bit more on Thursday and Friday then Dufner, I'm not going to complain b/c Woods provides the potential for something Dufner doesn't. Then on Sunday, they can put on the crews on the contenders. But to cry about the attention to Woods is like to complain that the Red Sox, Yanks, Heat, Lakers, etc get all the prime time games even when they aren't playing well meanwhile the Pacers could be winning 8 straight games but get no coverage. It is just how it is. It is why Duke still gets national TV games when they are 22-11 and lose in the first round on the NCAA tournament. B/c as bad as that Duke team was, people know what they are capable of and if you were going to pick 1 #6 seed to win a title that year, I would think Duke would be the favorite. Sure Woods coverage goes over the top a bit but it doesn't appear that they miss too much of the good golf.

And finally, you bring up his personal life being so scripted and I agree it would be similar to MJ or even Kobe. If you are a superstar, you either have that scripted lifestyle much like a celebrity or you become LeBron. So I agree that the guy had issues just like most superstars have issues b/c they are trying to live a lie but that lie is part of what makes them the superstar. I agree that Tiger's antics were a bit over the top but you could say the same about MJ's sportsmanship or Kobe's first words after his title was that he had more titles than Shaq. They are driven by that something which puts them in the discussion as the G.O.A.T. Heck, as Phil Mickelson gets more attention, I've heard from multiple people at tournaments that he is a jerk and someone who kids shouldn't emulate either. It is tough to try to tell what types of people the earlier superstars were b/c the media is completely different but Babe cheated on his wife, Ty Cobb was Ty Cobb, Ted Williams had many run ins with the media, etc. So it almost appears that society creates these monsters.

The TV coverage on Friday included a whole lot of Tiger, long after there was any chance of him making the cut.

[gw67]

sporthenry,

From your writing I surmise that Tiger is one of your sports heroes and you take offense at anyone not liking him. Let me say that up to the President’s Cup in 2000, I was a big fan of Tiger’s. A close friend of mine was the college roommate of a big shot in the PGA and we got tickets for the practice rounds and all rounds of play. I followed several players during the practice rounds and the tournament and stayed after the rounds to get players’ signatures for my youngest. With two exceptions, the players were very cordial and they made themselves available to the fans. The exceptions were Tiger and Duval. Both were grumpy and they came across as arrogant jerks. Furyk, Mickelson, Elkington, Lehman, Norman, Begay and Allenby were particularly friendly with fans as I recall. When I saw any of these guys in contention I rooted for them. Although I was no longer a fan of Woods, I continued to admire his remarkable game.

I have no problem with the sports shows and commentators spending most of their time prior to the tournaments speculating on every aspect of Woods’s health, game, whatever; however, when the play begins I would like the networks to attempt to cover the play of someone other than Tiger (and to a lesser extent Phil and Rory). The networks have made their deal with the devil and continue to hype Tiger whether he is playing well or not because they believe that it attracts the casual viewers. I don’t see this changing any time soon. Personally, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the four majors this year - lots of very good golf.

gw67

[Channing]

Tiger always has, and continues to, draw ratings. More ratings means better TV deals for the tournaments. Better TV deals means bigger purses. Whatever you think of Tiger as a person or as a golfer, his presence in golf the last decade and a half has driven the business side of the game to new heights. Most golfers owe Tiger a debt of gratitude for elevating purses to the point where middle of the road players can become filfth rich playing the game - something I am sure none of them begrudge.

[sagegrouse]

I don't really like getting into deep discussions like this as a mod, but I'll bite.

My record on Tiger is pretty well established here. I've never liked Tiger, but I wouldn't say I hate him, either. I acknowledge his prominence has made golf more popular, but in the same way college basketball would have more fans if unc won the next 10 national championships. Are you sure these are the people you want around?

What I have long had a bigger complaint about is the way people have (had) been blindly uncritical about him, and turn, liked him to the point that the game became "Tiger against the field", as Throaty implied. Even before 2009 there was a lot to question about him. Regarding the way he acts on the course -- say you keep everything about Tiger the same but make him a 10 handicap. Would I play a round with him? Hell no! Throwing clubs, pouting and yelling at cameramen isn't just about setting an example for kids. It's about resepcting the game and others who play it and keeping control of your emotions (which for most of us players is crucial to playing well). But it's not just that he does it, but that everyone (before 2009) gave him a free pass. "That's just Tiger being Tiger" or "That's because he's so competitive," people would say on these boards. It extended to the media as well.

All the non-golf aspects of Tiger seemed so bland, so packaged and calculated, like a continuous Nike commercial. As with Michael Jordan, no one questioned what was underneath. The 2008 US Open was the perfect microcosm of this. It was a historical performance, to be sure. But at the time I wondered whether he was putting his knee in long-term jeopardy.

I hope nobody is the "the next Tiger". I would never wish that fate on anyone. It would make going to golf tournaments a lot easier, too, because then you wouldn't have to plan around Tiger's army of ignorance.

Maybe he'll come back. In fact I think he probably will. But I feel vindicated that I was critical of Tiger, and the people who follow him, all along.

I have no doubt that Tiger has some personality traits that keep him from being better loved by other players. But as the most famous golfer in the world for nearly the past 15 years, it is unlikely he could have the same realxed and open attitude towards the fans that many players (amazingly) achieve.

I'm a Tiger fan because he is a champion. In the decade before Tiger, there were no Americans who came close to being the best player in the world. In the years 1987-1996 Americans won about half the grand slam events (22 of 40 by my count). Only three players won more than once: Payne Stewart, Curtis Strange, and -- for God's sake -- John Daly. Stewart and Strange and Azinger were great players back then, but they weren't the best in the world. Those honors went to Faldo and Nick Price and (a little earlier) Seve. And Greg Norman got the headlines, even though his winning didn't match his earlier promise. I thought American golf was in a funk and had been since Tom Watson ceased winning the British Open just about every year.

It is hard to win a golf tournament. There are IMHO (where the H is always silent) maybe fifty players who can win any tournament. In the years 1997-2006 Tiger won 13 -- that's THIRTEEN -- of the 40 majors played. That's a champion. He has won the Vardon trophy eight times and the similar Byron Nelson award nine for the lowest scoring average on the Tour. No one else has ever done that. Billy Casper and Arnie and Watson and Norman won 3-5; Nicklaus never seemed to have won (and I don't know why). Tiger was PGA Player of the Year ten times. These are incredible accomplishments.

Fame produces fame. Tiger has been one of the best-known golfers in the world since his amateur years. People follow him who are only casual golf fans because they have heard of him -- and he wins. It is really tough to get interested in Keegan and Duffner if you have never heard of them. This is a major reason that Tiger has helped build TV audiences and attendance at PGA events, leading to much larger purses. Even the pros that truly don't like him don't want him to disappear from the tour.

Now I have hated the Yankees for decades and decades, although I have generally liked their players. They win too much; the rules enable them to buy pennants; and I resent it. I understand how others would dislike Tiger because he has won so much. I can understand how people would be turned off by his personality and certainly by his personal transgressions. So each is entitled to his opinion.

sagegrouse

[sporthenry]

From your writing I surmise that Tiger is one of your sports heroes and you take offense at anyone not liking him. Let me say that up to the President’s Cup in 2000, I was a big fan of Tiger’s. A close friend of mine was the college roommate of a big shot in the PGA and we got tickets for the practice rounds and all rounds of play. I followed several players during the practice rounds and the tournament and stayed after the rounds to get players’ signatures for my youngest. With two exceptions, the players were very cordial and they made themselves available to the fans. The exceptions were Tiger and Duval. Both were grumpy and they came across as arrogant jerks. Furyk, Mickelson, Elkington, Lehman, Norman, Begay and Allenby were particularly friendly with fans as I recall. When I saw any of these guys in contention I rooted for them. Although I was no longer a fan of Woods, I continued to admire his remarkable game.

I have no problem with the sports shows and commentators spending most of their time prior to the tournaments speculating on every aspect of Woods’s health, game, whatever; however, when the play begins I would like the networks to attempt to cover the play of someone other than Tiger (and to a lesser extent Phil and Rory). The networks have made their deal with the devil and continue to hype Tiger whether he is playing well or not because they believe that it attracts the casual viewers. I don’t see this changing any time soon. Personally, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the four majors this year - lots of very good golf.

Actually, surprisingly, Tiger isn't one of my sports heroes. Perhaps I am that casual observer that so many purists tend to hate. I'm a guy who watches the majors, some of the bigger tournaments, will dabble in the FedEx cup and will watch the Davis Cup but I'm not going to go out of my way to watch the Waste Management open without some big name players most notably Tiger playing. Tiger does draw me in like a Federer/Nadal final or perhaps a Uconn women's game of last year or a no hitter bid in the 8th inning. When I don't have a horse in the race, I enjoy great performances and record breaking achievements. Sadly, I don't have enough interest/time to watch an Angels/Tigers game unless Verlander is throwing a no hitter or Washburn is throwing at someone's head.

And as far as Tiger, I do understand that he deserves some more crap b/c he built his legacy partially around his family but I was at some type of shower this spring when Tiger made his run on Sunday at the Masters and I broached the subject of Tiger and all the women were instantly appalled. So I started to ask them if they hated Kobe or Shaq or Brett Favre. They were initially caught off guard but once they figured out the connection, they seemed to feign hate towards them as well but not nearly to the same extent. I just don't know why so many want to hold that against Tiger more than people like Shaq, Kobe, MJ, Favre, Roger Clemens, etc when they are guilty of that same transgression. And that doesn't even crack into the political arena. I just end up defending Tiger b/c he sort of became the face of infidelity and I don't think that part is fair.

As far as Tiger being a jerk, I don't disagree at all. But that behavior pervades sports. Throwing bats after player's strike out, LeBron walking off the court after losing, all of the petty behavior by players like Phillip Rivers and Jay Cutler, etc. And the interesting part is that the two guys you mentioned happened to be the 2 best guys on tour. Similarly, I heard a story from a friend where Mickelson acted like a jerk in a similar autograph session and when you google him with the word jerk, you find plenty of articles including the fact he rated as 8th most hated athlete by his peers by GQ. So perhaps once you become the face of the media, you just don't have the time to be nice to everyone or the cameras aren't around Bubba Watson or Rocco Mediate enough or the jerk in them is what constantly drives them to be the best a la Jordan.

For the TV coverage, he wasn't really on the Thursday program since he played the morning session so there wasn't really an issue there. And I actually didn't catch most of the Friday coverage so I can't talk about how much they covered him in this specific tournament but coverage on Thursdays and Fridays is mostly reserved for big names b/c of the vast quantity of golfers. With 156 golfers and most majors only showing one of the groups, that means you have 78 guys on the course and 78 guys who have already played that you have to show some highlights from. And you have a litany of guys who shot decent to good rounds that come and go at the top for every major. Jerry Kelly shot a 65 in the first round but followed that up with the same round as Tiger did in 73. And perhaps it is the casual fan in me, but watching a guy fire a first round 68 doesn't nearly interest me as much as a final round 68. And I never really seemed to have any issues with the coverage on Saturday/Sunday mainly b/c if you aren't contending odds are your round is done by the time the leaders tee off. Now if they started cutting to Tiger in his effort to qualify for the FedEx cup on Sunday then I might have a problem but I have no problem with the Thursday/Friday coverage where they follow some big name guys either as they try to stay in the tournament or are leading and then cut to some guys with great shots or who are near the top of the leader board. Would you rather watch Tiger with the potential to do amazing or a guy 3 off the lead to start the 2nd round fire a 78?

[cato]

. . . Phillip Rivers . . .

It is very sad that you would include Phillip Rivers in the same list as the other players you mentioned above. While I do not know the guy personally, everybody who does will swear that he is one of the most upstanding individuals they have ever met in the sports world. He is dedicated to his family, and acts more like our own Grant Hill than the company you refer to above.

[sporthenry]

It is very sad that you would include Phillip Rivers in the same list as the other players you mentioned above. While I do not know the guy personally, everybody who does will swear that he is one of the most upstanding individuals they have ever met in the sports world. He is dedicated to his family, and acts more like our own Grant Hill than the company you refer to above.

My comparison to Rivers had nothing to do with the family but it was listed in the same sentence as people who smash Tiger based off his on course antics. I don't know the guy personally but as an east coast guy who only gets to see the guy a few times, the one thing which I will probably always remember is him yelling across the field at Jay Cutler, crying about the Patriots, getting in spats with fans, and being a sore loser. So I'm not sure he acts like Grant Hill in that respect and my main point is that we hardly hold many people accountable for their unsportsmanlike conduct yet hold it against Tiger. Perhaps it is b/c golf is the gentleman's game and produces a different crowd but my main point is that sports today are filled with bad sportsmanship and terrible behavior for kids to emulate. Heck, Dufner put in some tobacco and the golf announcers chuckled thats why he is so calm yet people are up in arms about baseball players doing that. I'm sure CBS made sure not to show it again but there are few people who I would hold as great role models for the youth.

[cato]

My comparison to Rivers had nothing to do with the family but it was listed in the same sentence as people who smash Tiger based off his on course antics. I don't know the guy personally but as an east coast guy who only gets to see the guy a few times, the one thing which I will probably always remember is him yelling across the field at Jay Cutler, crying about the Patriots, getting in spats with fans, and being a sore loser. So I'm not sure he acts like Grant Hill in that respect and my main point is that we hardly hold many people accountable for their unsportsmanlike conduct yet hold it against Tiger. Perhaps it is b/c golf is the gentleman's game and produces a different crowd but my main point is that sports today are filled with bad sportsmanship and terrible behavior for kids to emulate. Heck, Dufner put in some tobacco and the golf announcers chuckled thats why he is so calm yet people are up in arms about baseball players doing that. I'm sure CBS made sure not to show it again but there are few people who I would hold as great role models for the youth.

The simple fact that you think that Rivers belongs in the same conversation as Tiger in terms of sportsmanship goes a long way to showing the power of the media to craft these type narratives. Hey, you admit that you have very limited exposure to him, so I get it. But maybe think twice before lumping the guy in with those others.

[throatybeard]

And how many people know the 2 teams between '64 and '75 who won titles?

Off the top of my head, Texas Western and NC State. And I'm not exactly a huge college basketball fan.

[gw67]

As described in the link below, the Auburn coaches and football team made a nice gesture toward Jason Dufner, an Auburn grad. Dufner played terrific golf for 68 holes and came up a little short. However, there were some positives. He showed he could stay with the big boys on a seriously difficult course; he is invited to play at next year's Masters; he made a boatload of money; and he moved up in the Fedex standings. Not bad for a journeyman tour player.

http://tourreport.pgatour.com/2011/0...dufner-forget/

gw67