PDA

View Full Version : Out of the Woods?


SF Kid
04-21-2008, 05:17 PM
Mon, April 21, 2008

History's best golfer still dogged by unrealistic expectations
By EDWARD GREENSPAN

"Tiger Woods the greatest? Not until he proves it."

"No Magic In Woods."

"Tiger Woods has a glitch in his game, or his brain, that prevents him coming from behind to win a major."

These are some of the headlines and commentary that followed Woods' second-place finish at the Masters last week.

Second place! Can you imagine? I heard far worse on television and radio. I cannot understand this nonsense.

Woods has won 13 majors, an unprecedented three amateur championships and three junior amateur championships. He has been the PGA Player of the Year a record nine times, and he is only 32 years old.

At one point during the Masters when he was in eighth place, CBS noted that Woods had won as many major tournaments (13) as the other seven people ahead of him had won tournaments at all. And yet some in the media have the gall to say he still has to prove he's the greatest?

I'm a bit reluctant to even write about Woods, because it seems that the only time I ever write about an athlete is when there are allegations of drug use.

In recent years I've written about Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. If I ever hear about Tiger Woods smoking some Bermuda bent grass, I'm sure it will be a reference to his putting.

ABSURDLY DIFFICULT

Golf is an absurdly difficult game. For me, it is an impossible game. Even miniature golf is a serious challenge for me.

Anyone who has ever spent an afternoon at a driving range knows how difficult hitting a golf ball can be.

And on top of that singularly difficult task, every golf course presents different conditions, which change every time it is played. The length of the hole, the pin location, and the weather are different every day of a tournament.

Despite all the variables, Woods has dominated the game as no other golfer ever has before.

I happen to believe we live in a time where all of us have witnessed the greatest athletes in sports history: Armstrong in cycling; Wayne Gretzky in hockey; Michael Jordan in basketball; Clemens in baseball and Woods in golf.

Woods is the best in no small part because he doggedly wants to be the best at what he does. He does not want to be second best.

But regardless of the outcome, when you dedicate yourself to trying to be the best, you will always be second to none.

So it bothers me when I read and hear about Woods' "failure" for finishing second at the Masters, one of the world's most difficult golf courses with a field filled with the world's most formidable opponents.

There are 14 ways for a professional to qualify for the Masters, and Woods qualified this year 11 different ways. Only three others qualified as many as eight ways.

MISSING THE CUT

Ernie Els and Sergio Garcia didn't even make the cut this year. But Woods comes in second and somehow he's now a nobody. And it turns out he played the Masters on a bad knee that required surgery two days later.

One writer said it was surprising to see Woods "putting like you and me." I guess he thinks you and I could have made the 80-foot putt Woods made for birdie Sunday. Anyone who thinks less of Woods after this year's Masters is a "putz."

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/04/21/5343506-sun.html

------------------------------------------

I have to say it irks me when writers pull the "he's never come from behind to win a major" card. That is just absurd. This writer has it right --- How many golfers ever come from behind to win a major? It's not like you can go out on those tough courses and just string together birdies and come charging from behind. Shit, Tiger finished second with his "B" game at the Masters but it's not good enough. Trevor Immelman was in a zone for four days and Tiger almost caught him on Sunday on the back nine.

Problem: Tiger has set the bar so high even he can't live up to the hype. In the end it really doesn't matter. Tiger is the best of all time and even Jack Nickalus knows it.

I feel fortunate to have seen Palmer, Nickalus and now Woods in their prime. What a treat.

McCovey
04-21-2008, 05:43 PM
Has it ever occurred to the writer that the reason Tiger has never come from behind to win a major is because he's always ahead going into the final round? Du'h!

SF Kid
04-21-2008, 05:52 PM
Has it ever occurred to the writer that the reason Tiger has never come from behind to win a major is because he's always ahead going into the final round? Du'h!No it just something the writers are looking for to point out a flaw in the Great One. In this article Edward Greenspan seems to be pointing out how absurd it is.

The media will point to the fact that all 13 of his major wins have been when he is either ahead or tired for the lead going into the final round. So? Golf is easily the hardest game on earth. The fact that Woods at 32 has already won 13 major tournaments is unreal. But that doesn't stop the media from trying to find a reason to question his greratness. I guess all the winning just gets boring and they have run out of words to describe it. Jack finished second 18 times. Did he ever come from behind? I really don't know and it really doesn't matter. Doesn't make Nickalus' accomplishments any better or worse whether he came from behind or not in a major. He won 18 of them. So Woods is less a player because (to this point) he has never come from behind to win a major? :rolleyes: