Running Ryder Cup '06 thread - SPOILERS (like you couldn't figure that)

I respect and appreciate your coverage of those events, but I shagged the bag in many of the events you've covered and all you're doing is reporting the hype. No one cares about 18 majors....because what happens after that, he's finally the greatest player in the world? The greatest player to ever play the game? He's already that.

The original argument is that the Ryder Cup is not as important as the majors and that's bulltshit. Tiger has a blemish on his record and he knows it. 1-4 in the Ryder Cup is unacceptable for a future Hall-of-Famer...and don't think that records won't show up in the Hall as well. Considering his strengths, the guy has about 10 Ryder Cups left before father time catches up. That means he has to win seven Cups to have a winning record by the time he's 50. That's 7 out of 10....can he do it, that's the question and one that helps define his career completely.

You never know what happens, how many years did Nicklaus go between majors before '86? Things happen to a player, family, yips, swing struggles, body aches, etc. I'm not ever saying it's going to happen to this guy, but you've already seen him get awkward a couple of years while trying to regroup his swing. Think about life in the mid 40s...and knowing this guy, he's never gonna want to go down as the greatest player in the world to have a losing Ryder record.

On a side note, I'd like to know where you write so I can critique your coverage. Feel free to message me.

 

Shagged the bag? Does that mean you were a caddie or did you carry the camera bags in for CBS the week of the Masters?
I report what happens and what people say. Tiger's pursuit of Jack's record will be the most talked-about and written-about ongoing subject as he gets closer and closer. It doesn't need hype. It's going to be there every time he wins one and it's going to be huge as the countdown goes on. I already has been, or did you miss the coverage of the PGA and British Open this year?

I'm not downplaying the Ryder Cup at all. But comparing it to the majors is apples and oranges. And I guaran-damn-tee you if Tiger loses every Ryder Cup match he plays for the rest of his career, he goes into the Hall of Fame, dead lock, 100 percent of the ballots, the year he turns 40 years old and is eligible (actually the year after, because his birthday is Dec. 30).

 

Listen pal, you started the credibilty challenge.

I guaran-damn-tee you that a guy who carried a golf bag on Tour is much more in the know, than a cat who covers three of the four majors and maybe a local tour stop annually.

I'm not going to bite on your bullshit argument. The bottom line is that Tiger's Ryder record will eat at him and it's going to be at some point more important than anything the guy does. Immediate Hall of Famer, I never said anything, nor implied that he would not be. I said it's unacceptable for a future Hall of Famer to have a losing team record in the Ryder Cup...especially one that you guys suck off. And more deplorable that you guys won't challenge him on this. You lob soft balls at him and kiss his ass because you don't want to be the reporter that upsets him. More importantly, you'd be surprised at his reactions to challenging him on his legacy...I'll think you'll find a little bit more of what the guy's all about.

But maybe you're right, I want to hear more about his charitable contributions and First Tee Academies...please. You guys write about all this bullshit, but you never follow up to ask about what the end results were. But, hey, at least it makes Nike, Buick and Tag Heuer look good.

 

I think the Ryder Cup losses will get to Tiger -- if they haven't started getting to him now. However, the bottom line is this: the best 12 Euro golfers are better as a whole than the best dozen Americans.

 

Is Falwell telling you all this?

No doubt you are correct, with regard to Tiger and the Euros...and don't you think a lackluster Ryder record is a blemish on what has been a remarkable career that may go unmatched?

 

Wow.

gandhi, I must respectfully disagree with your 18 majors commentary. I am closer in age to Woods than Nicklaus, but that puts in me in the minority among many of those who cover golf and watch it. (While Woods has brought a much different -- and younger demographic -- to the sport, whenever I cover golf, I can't help but notice that the fans and the media skew white and 40+, especially when Woods isn't playing.)

Among that older demographic, there is much loyalty to Nicklaus. I once did a lengthy feature about this at a tournament, and the fans' thoughts were very thoughtful and revealing:

They did not put down Woods at all. In fact, most of them praised Woods's accomplishments, skill level and desire to win. However, for many of these people, the 1986 Masters is the greatest golf memory of their lives. There was a overwhelming theme of "he was washed up, finished, a pulled off that back-nine miracle." I followed-up with, "What is the bigger upset? Nicklaus in 1986, or Woods in 1997?"

Their choice was Nicklaus, because he was older and seemingly finished. Woods at least showed he was a rising star. Rightly or wrongly, that's their choice.

The second reason was that Nicklaus had 18 majors and Woods didn't. So I followed-up with, "If Woods passes him, does that then make him the greatest ever?" To a man/woman, they all said yes. Some of them admitted it was tough to say that, because they loved Nicklaus so much, but they did so.

Maybe among the players you caddied for, the 18 majors doesn't mean as much. Fine. That's their prerogative. But among fans, the readers hondo is trying to serve, it sure does.

Where I do agree is that a fierce competitor like Woods will want a defining Ryder Cup moment -- a good one -- before he quits.

 

So you're a caddie, huh? Sounds like you and the players for whom you worked were sucking Tiger's exhaust a few too many times. It also means you've got a bit of an agenda going, which I don't. I've got a hint for players and I guess at least one caddie who gets frustrated with the media attention they think Tiger is getting: make more birdies.

And Tiger's Ryder Cup record may eat at him. I'm sure he would have liked to have done better. I'm sure he wants to do better. But there isn't a single player in the Hall of Fame who got there solely through his Ryder Cup record. There's a ton, however, who are in there with average to bad Ryder Cup records (on both sides of the pond) that played little to no factor in whether they made the Hall of Fame.

And it's not three majors and one local event. Try 12-15 per year, almost 200 PGA Tour events total. And I think a caddie's perspective might be a big skewed. The only guy you're really watching is the guy for whom you're working.

I thought the mantra for caddies was "show up, keep up and shut up." Give No. 3 a try, dude.

 

yeah...I don't even need to see your work to know how weak you are. First off, I no longer caddie. As for the exhaust fumes, very few feel any animosity toward that man's success and that's what golf is...you root for someone to play flawless golf, it's already a dificult enough game.

So your agenda bullshit is out and pretty indicative of how far you people will go to justify your positions. I never sought to attack your credibilty, just push you to back up your bullshit with facts. You failed...it was easier to try and break me down personally than back up your position, which is I'm a wannabe golf writer who doesn't have my own pulse, much less that of the Tour.

That's a cute little ending you have there. And obviously you have no clue what it means to have a mantra, much less a direction. Tell you what, try stepping outside the press tent and sacking up inside the ropes and will see how long you last. Other than that, dream on about your significance in golf...somone like you has no credibility anyhow.

For the record, Tiger Woods knows his Ryder record is weak and that it's significant. I'd expect him, as the greatest player of my generation, to turn it around...that's what champions do.

 

[/quote]
yeah...I don't even need to see your work to know how weak you are. First off, I no longer caddie. As for the exhaust fumes, very few feel any animosity toward that man's success and that's what golf is...you root for someone to play flawless golf, it's already a dificult enough game.

So your agenda bullshit is out and pretty indicative of how far you people will go to justify your positions. I never sought to attack your credibilty, just push you to back up your bullshit with facts. You failed...it was easier to try and break me down personally than back up your position, which is I'm a wannabe golf writer who doesn't have my own pulse, much less that of the Tour.

That's a cute little ending you have there. And obviously you have no clue what it means to have a mantra, much less a direction. Tell you what, try stepping outside the press tent and sacking up inside the ropes and will see how long you last. Other than that, dream on about your significance in golf...somone like you has no credibility anyhow.

For the record, Tiger Woods knows his Ryder record is weak and that it's significant. I'd expect him, as the greatest player of my generation, to turn it around...that's what champions do.
[/quote]

Oh, Lord, where to start with this BS...
I didn't even spout any "bullshit," as you charged. I merely told you, and was backed by other posters, that you're mistaken if you think Tiger going after Jack's record wasn't going to be the biggest story in golf over the next few years, or however long it takes, and that success in the Ryder Cup rarely, if ever, defines a player's career. I would think those two points quite obvious to anyone who knows about golf, and they are backed up by facts, which I gave you. It's a fact that Tiger's pursuit of Jack would be big, and backing up that assertion is the volume of media coverage at this year's British Open and PGA. We're not all in Tiger's hip pocket. Not even a majority of us in the media.

Second, if a won-loss record in the Ryder Cup was crucial to defining someone's career, let me ask you this: Will Monty make the Hall of Fame if he never wins a major? Will Sergio? No. On the other hand, as I said before, Tiger could go the rest of his life without winning another Ryder Cup match, and he'll still make the Hall of Fame and will have been considered to have a better career than Sergio or Monty.

As I said before, there are only three Hall of Famers who were career players (not administrators, architects or teachers) who got it without having won a major: Isao Aoki, Chi Chi Rodriguez and Charlie Sifford. And they each had their own unique accomplishments that got them in -- Chi Chi for his humanitarian causes, Aoki for his Japanese Tour record and Sifford for being the first black member of the Tour.
There you have it: My "bullshit" backed up by facts. They're just not facts you want to believe in. That's okay. You've got your opinion, I've got mine.

And I don't have any illusions of having a "significance" in golf. Just a significance in doing my job, which I think has been more than validated with being in the business for 31 years. And my editors, peers and readers think I have enough credibility. And I've got enough direction in my life, thank you. Don't need your help in finding that.

Wannabe golf writer? I've covered almost 200 professional. Just how many does it take for you to think it's more than "wannabe."

Chill out, dude. This board is just a free flow of opinion. You started in with the personal attacks.

 

No it won't. But this was a good bait.

 

these are good points and I'm real close to Tiger's generation, yet I respect and understand the dominance of Jack Nicklaus...I too give Jack's '86 Masters the defining moment of golf, by far outweighing Tiger in '97.

When it comes to demographics, yeah OK, Nicklaus had 18 majors and that stands as the standard. But, if Woods comes up short, does that lessen his position as potentially golf's greatest player? I think not. If he surpasses it, there is nothing shocking about that. Is it news...yeah. Is it the greatest feat in sport? I couldn't swear to that. Six NBA Championships is quite stout. Three Super Bowls...etc.

My point is this (and please understand I'm not lessening, just putting in perspective, the importance of majors), majors are not significantly higher in purse than regular tour events when compared back in the day. They are played across the same spectrum as regular events....72 holes and the setup makes the tournament. Where majors are important is for a handful of players...but the broad spectrum of Tour players are now looking to secure their cards as opposed to going toe to toe with the best player in the world.

Back in the day, you had guys willing to put it out there on the line to go up against Nicklaus. Today's players seem complacent.

The original argument is that Tiger Woods Ryder Cup record is significant when placing him among the games elite players....and that's really only one player. 25 years from now at the Ford Senior Players Tournament, my kid's gonna notice that Tiger's Ryder record is sub-standard for a player that defined his generation. And do I look at him and say the Ryder Cup is less important than anything else?

 

yeah...I don't even need to see your work to know how weak you are. First off, I no longer caddie. As for the exhaust fumes, very few feel any animosity toward that man's success and that's what golf is...you root for someone to play flawless golf, it's already a dificult enough game.

So your agenda bullshit is out and pretty indicative of how far you people will go to justify your positions. I never sought to attack your credibilty, just push you to back up your bullshit with facts. You failed...it was easier to try and break me down personally than back up your position, which is I'm a wannabe golf writer who doesn't have my own pulse, much less that of the Tour.

That's a cute little ending you have there. And obviously you have no clue what it means to have a mantra, much less a direction. Tell you what, try stepping outside the press tent and sacking up inside the ropes and will see how long you last. Other than that, dream on about your significance in golf...somone like you has no credibility anyhow.

For the record, Tiger Woods knows his Ryder record is weak and that it's significant. I'd expect him, as the greatest player of my generation, to turn it around...that's what champions do.
[/quote]

Oh, Lord, where to start with this BS...
I didn't even spout any "bullshit," as you charged. I merely told you, and was backed by other posters, that you're mistaken if you think Tiger going after Jack's record wasn't going to be the biggest story in golf over the next few years, or however long it takes, and that success in the Ryder Cup rarely, if ever, defines a player's career. I would think those two points quite obvious to anyone who knows about golf, and they are backed up by facts, which I gave you. It's a fact that Tiger's pursuit of Jack would be big, and backing up that assertion is the volume of media coverage at this year's British Open and PGA. We're not all in Tiger's hip pocket. Not even a majority of us in the media.

Second, if a won-loss record in the Ryder Cup was crucial to defining someone's career, let me ask you this: Will Monty make the Hall of Fame if he never wins a major? Will Sergio? No. On the other hand, as I said before, Tiger could go the rest of his life without winning another Ryder Cup match, and he'll still make the Hall of Fame and will have been considered to have a better career than Sergio or Monty.

As I said before, there are only three Hall of Famers who were career players (not administrators, architects or teachers) who got it without having won a major: Isao Aoki, Chi Chi Rodriguez and Charlie Sifford. And they each had their own unique accomplishments that got them in -- Chi Chi for his humanitarian causes, Aoki for his Japanese Tour record and Sifford for being the first black member of the Tour.
There you have it: My "bullshit" backed up by facts. They're just not facts you want to believe in. That's okay. You've got your opinion, I've got mine.

And I don't have any illusions of having a "significance" in golf. Just a significance in doing my job, which I think has been more than validated with being in the business for 31 years. And my editors, peers and readers think I have enough credibility. And I've got enough direction in my life, thank you. Don't need your help in finding that.

Wannabe golf writer? I've covered almost 200 professional. Just how many does it take for you to think it's more than "wannabe."

Chill out, dude. This board is just a free flow of opinion. You started in with the personal attacks.

[/quote]

all's good...but I must digress, you tried to establish credibility as a golf beat writer and then attack me as a caddie with a skewed perception? So, as for personal...

No harm no fowl.

As for Monty and Sergio, they'll get into the Hall of Fame...you must be smoking crack to think they won't. If Sergio falls off the face of the earth, then probably not. But Monty, a lightning rod for the game and a seven-time Order winner. Single handidly responsible for stirring the American crowds at Ryder Cups. He is the Ryder Cup for Europe. Come on dude.