Anyone else frustrated by CBS' coverage of the "Tiger-Masters".
- Thread starter MemphisMaroonClubDog
- Start date
Tiger is a great golfer, but I don't see him passing Jack and his 18 Majors, especially if he fails to win one this year. Jack won his 14th major at age 35, Tiger is 35 now. Tiger failed to win a tournament for the first time last year. He won his last major at the US Open in 08, then had ACL surgery and hasn't been the same since. His main problem now is his putting. He is stuck using that Nike putter and it is killing him. If he had Titleist as his sponsor he might already have past Jack. I am just not sold on their balls and clubs, and especially their putters.DAWG61 said:
tell me the last time you saw "dominant" tiger woods??? Its not nearly as recently as you tiger fans believe. And, when he was dominant, it wasn't at age 35+ with bad knees and all the rest.
Nicklaus
18 Major wins, 19 Runner ups, 56 top 10s
Woods
14 Major wins, 6 Runner ups, 35 top 10s
Put that into perspective... It will take Tiger finishing in the top 10 of the next 21 majors to tie Jack (5+ years worth!)... And he will have to do it all on a knee that has no cartilage and by his own admission does not allow him to do the things he could when he was winning.
</p>
18 Major wins, 19 Runner ups, 56 top 10s
Woods
14 Major wins, 6 Runner ups, 35 top 10s
Put that into perspective... It will take Tiger finishing in the top 10 of the next 21 majors to tie Jack (5+ years worth!)... And he will have to do it all on a knee that has no cartilage and by his own admission does not allow him to do the things he could when he was winning.
</p>
That produced sky high ratings for the early rounds and combo that with Mickelson/Couples in the final round made for serious ratings.. The 2011 Masters had very solid ratings as well. The 2nd highest since 1997 - the year Tiger won his first Masters.
People like watching Tiger. You should be used to this by now. Suggesting otherwise is just dumb.
People like watching Tiger. You should be used to this by now. Suggesting otherwise is just dumb.
thats my point. People are always arguing that no one turns in to watch golf unless Tiger is playing or doing well, I would argue that people are not turning in to watch unless Mickelson is playing or doing well. THAT is what the numbers from last yr to this yr say.
Again, I enjoyed watching it yesterday. What frustrated me was the non-stop Tiger coverage on Saturday when he wasn't doing anything special. That was the problem. I enjoy watching Tiger struggle as much as anyone. Hope he finishes 4th in a lot of future majors.
Again, I enjoyed watching it yesterday. What frustrated me was the non-stop Tiger coverage on Saturday when he wasn't doing anything special. That was the problem. I enjoy watching Tiger struggle as much as anyone. Hope he finishes 4th in a lot of future majors.
But Tiger has years left. They are basically dead even in majors won at their age and Nicklaus is admittedly ahead in top tens. Making a comparison of Nicklaus' total resume against Tiger's at age 35 is utterly ridiculous. Tiger may have 10 or more years of competitive golf ahead of him. On top of that, Tiger has tougher competition as the sport draws far more worldwide competition than it did during Jack's age. <div>
</div><div>At the very most, Jack is slightly ahead of Tiger at this point.</div>
</div><div>At the very most, Jack is slightly ahead of Tiger at this point.</div>
I have alot of respect for the old guys because of what they had to play with. If players today tried to play with their equipment they would duff balls.
are you kidding me?
I almost hesitate to even respond to you but damn...
I have more respect for a golfer that was playing basically the same courses (yes,they havebeen lengthened some, avg of about 25 yards per hold. Considering the upgrades in technology for clubs and balls, I would call that fairly even) and was playing against literally the legends of the game and put up the numbers.
I am sorry that you hate the argument but to even say with a straight face that playing against the likes of Rory McIlroy, Adam Scott, K.J. Choi and Charl Swartzel compares to:
These are just some of the top 10 finishers from Nicklaus' Masters wins:
Tom Kite, Greg Norman, Seve Ballesteros, Nick Price, Tom Watson, Payne Stewart, Bob Tway, Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller, Tom Weiskopf, Hale Irwin, Billy Casper, Tom Kite, Tom Watson, J.C. Snead, Gary Player, Raymond Floyd
I almost hesitate to even respond to you but damn...
I have more respect for a golfer that was playing basically the same courses (yes,they havebeen lengthened some, avg of about 25 yards per hold. Considering the upgrades in technology for clubs and balls, I would call that fairly even) and was playing against literally the legends of the game and put up the numbers.
I am sorry that you hate the argument but to even say with a straight face that playing against the likes of Rory McIlroy, Adam Scott, K.J. Choi and Charl Swartzel compares to:
These are just some of the top 10 finishers from Nicklaus' Masters wins:
Tom Kite, Greg Norman, Seve Ballesteros, Nick Price, Tom Watson, Payne Stewart, Bob Tway, Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller, Tom Weiskopf, Hale Irwin, Billy Casper, Tom Kite, Tom Watson, J.C. Snead, Gary Player, Raymond Floyd
was only4 shots off the lead entering Sunday(3 closer than this year). So he was in fact "in the hunt" last year as well, until Phil played lights out to finish out his round(just like swartzel this year). And you could easily spin your ratings theory off to say "ratings were higher last year b/c it was the first tournament, and amajor at that,Tiger participated in since hisdomestic 17up."
I mean....Tiger has had to deal with these guys in his past major wins
hil, Lee Westwood, Padraig Harrington, Martin Kymer, Ernie Els, VJ, Luke Donald, Retief Goosen, Geof Ogilvy, David Duval, Mark O'Meara, Jim Fuyrk. Thats just the top of my head. There are several major winners sprinkled in there to go along with those still looking to add to the total.
Basically what I'm saying compeition was stout in both times without a doubt. I wouldn't put one era over another head and shoulders.
hil, Lee Westwood, Padraig Harrington, Martin Kymer, Ernie Els, VJ, Luke Donald, Retief Goosen, Geof Ogilvy, David Duval, Mark O'Meara, Jim Fuyrk. Thats just the top of my head. There are several major winners sprinkled in there to go along with those still looking to add to the total.Basically what I'm saying compeition was stout in both times without a doubt. I wouldn't put one era over another head and shoulders.
The Nike putter is the problem? In his day he could have pulled a happy gilmore and putted with a hockey stick. I don't think a Nike putter is his problem. It's a putter. If you spend enough time on the practice green you can figure out how to use any putter. I play golf regularly and have used many putters. As long as you give me time to get used to the way the ball comes off of the face, i can putt with any of them
of both era's that you see the difference. Try ranking the number 100-150 guys of 1965 vs the today's 100-150. That's the major difference. The talent pool today is gigantic compared to Jack's day. Tiger only needs 5 more and he's got 15 years of majors to do it which is oddly about the same amount of years he's been a pro. So far he's got 14 in 15 years. How many will he get in the next 15 years? Care to bet he won't get atleast 5? I'm gonna have to put my money on Tiger on this one.
That is a ridiculous argument. <div>
</div><div>The reason there were a handful of "legends" during Jack's era was due to the lack of overall talent. In any major today, almost all competing have a chance to win due to increased interest, improved conditioning, swing coaches, etc. Jack never had to compete against guys like Charl and Day. Winning means beating 90 or 100 guys, not 15 or 20.</div><div>
</div><div>I can accept an argument that Jack's career is more impressive, but saying that he had tougher competition is just silly.</div>
</div><div>The reason there were a handful of "legends" during Jack's era was due to the lack of overall talent. In any major today, almost all competing have a chance to win due to increased interest, improved conditioning, swing coaches, etc. Jack never had to compete against guys like Charl and Day. Winning means beating 90 or 100 guys, not 15 or 20.</div><div>
</div><div>I can accept an argument that Jack's career is more impressive, but saying that he had tougher competition is just silly.</div>
I'm a Tiger fan. I enjoy watching him play, and enjoy watching him win. I have nothing against the cameras showing all of his shots even when he's not in contention. I certainly don't mind him getting coverage when he's within a couple shots of the lead.
What I get tired of is the coverage of Tiger when he's not hitting the ball. The cameras will follow his every move, and stay on him while he spends two minutes or more trying to read a putt. The will show him strolling from the fairway to the green, or acting out demonstratively after a bad shot......meanwhile they could be showing us coverage of guys who are actually about to win the tournament.
What I get tired of is the coverage of Tiger when he's not hitting the ball. The cameras will follow his every move, and stay on him while he spends two minutes or more trying to read a putt. The will show him strolling from the fairway to the green, or acting out demonstratively after a bad shot......meanwhile they could be showing us coverage of guys who are actually about to win the tournament.
and I agree that they show extra coverage of Tiger but it's for a reason. Tiger Woods is a reality tv star in a way. The average fan watching golf wants to get better and little things like what snack Tiger eats or what practice swing routine or putt reading routine does he have are little bits of info that lots of people can't get enough of. They picked him long ago to show the extra. He is the Yankees,Lakers,Patriots all rolled into one as far as golf is concerned. He isn't just the pink elephant, he's the pink elephant 757 airplane that landed on your face while your watching tv. I couldn't watch golf if all they showed was shots and putts over and over. You need little breaks with commentary and they have to pick ONE guy that the tv viewer can grow with. It's been Tiger for 15 years and it'll stay Tiger for awhile longer. Who would you replace as the one guy that they follow? It's obviously proven tv for them to pick one guy and feed the consumer in all of us so who is better than Nike Woods?
Tiger = fringe fans...plain and simple.Golf's core audience could care less about tiger except for a few homers here and there. Is heultra talented...hell yeah. Ishe a total douchebag....wha hell yeah. So is his 17ing caddie. Stevie may be abigger jackwagon than tiger. Yes, CBS/NBC would rather blow tiger all day than show the other golfers. Its about money and ratings for them.