Tiger Woods called a "Cavalier with the rules"

First topic message reminder :

Tiger Woods has been called a cheat by one of American television’s most respected golf commentators. In an explosive article in the US magazine Golf, former PGA Tour professional and Golf Channel lead analyst Brandel Chamblee has tarred the world number one with the worst label possible.
It seems inevitable Woods will take legal action, for how can he let such an allegation go unchallenged in this, of all sports?

Woods won five times on the PGA Tour and was named Player of the Year by his peers. But he was also involved in no fewer than four rules controversies, and it clearly incensed Chamblee.
Calling Tiger ‘cavalier with the rules,’ the 51 year old American gave exam grades in the magazine article to each of the leading players and awarded Woods an ‘F.’ He then embarked on an analogy that left no room for doubt as to why the grade was so dismal.

‘When I was in the fourth grade I cheated on a maths test and when I got the paper back it had “100” written at the top and just below the grade was this quote: ‘Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”
‘It was an oft-quoted line from the epic poem “Marmion” by Sir Walter Scott, and my teacher’s message was clear. Written once more beneath that quote was my grade of “100” but this time with a line drawn through it and beneath that an F.
'I never did ask my teacher how she knew I cheated and I certainly didn’t protest the grade. I knew I had done the wrong thing and I never forgot the way I felt.’ Drawing a line through a score of 100 and giving Woods an F, Chamblee concluded: ‘I remember when we only talked about Tiger’s golf.
'I miss those days. He won five times and contended in majors and won the Vardon Trophy and....how shall we say this....was a little cavalier with the rules.’
Woods has caused plenty of muttering behind hands with his rules issues but Chamblee is the first to declare he cheated. It is certainly a brave call given the power Woods holds, and the storm that will assuredly follow.
Chamblee might not be the biggest name on the golf analyst circuit but he is certainly among the most forthright and knowledgeable

Woods’s rules woes began at the Abu Dhabi Championship in January, where he was given a two shot penalty for taking an illegal drop.
By far the worst came at the Masters, where he again took an illegal drop after his approach to the 15th in the second round cannoned unluckily off the flag stick into a water hazard. Woods duly signed for an incorrect scorecard when he was subsequently assessed a two stroke penalty.
Disqualification ought to have followed, only for the Masters rules committee to come up with a tortuous explanation as to why ‘exceptional’ circumstances applied. Even so, when he realised he had broken the rules, Woods should have disqualified himself. Instead, he played on.

A month later, he allegedly gave himself another favourable drop at the Players Championship. Finally, at the BMW Championship in Chicago last month, he argued vehemently against a two shot penalty being assessed for causing his ball to move while lifting a twig, even though television evidence appeared damning.
Now Chamblee has reached the gravest conclusion. We haven’t heard the last of this.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-2465974/Tiger-Woods-labelled-cheat-pro-commentator-Brandel-Chamblee.html#ixzz2i75VRvS8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

BlueCoverman wrote:I will love it, love it if he doesn't beat Jack's record

MPB tee'd it up for me and you stole the punchline Blue

super_realist wrote:Being minted and famous will get you all manner of superficially tidy but shallow birds frothing at the gash.

    what an image!

Hmm ... interesting development -

Chamblee is paid to be controversial at times and, as long as he is not scared about being hit by a costly lawsuit, will be loving the attention. He is not alone, however, in being someone who has gone from a huge Tiger fan to a critic. And, if reports now emerging that Woods would not even look at a slow-motion replay of his latest rules incident and stormed off effing and blinding are true, then we have obviously reached the dangerous stage where he thinks he is above the game’s golden rules.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/tiger-woods-weaves-tangled-web-laced-with-suspicion-1-3149784

I will be completely indifferent, completely indifferent if he does/doesn't beat Jack's record

No chance, hasn't won a major in 5 years and people expect him to win 5 more? Be realistic, especially when he bottles majors these days.

I would like him to. Simply to have lived through the time when the greatest golfer of all time plied his trade. I am a fan of Woods' golf, but the same sentiment/rationale would apply were McIlroy (or A.N. Other) to start pushing towards the record. Jack's last Masters in 86 was before I started playing so I haven't seen him winning let alone in his pomp other than the increasingly sparing glimpses of odd shots on old TV footage.

To have lived, seen and be able to remember it would be something. (If only to probably to end up arguing with the next generation about their Palmer/Nicklaus/Woods!)

What I dont get with you lot is why you think tiger (or indeed anyone outside your circle) gives a sh**t if a bunch of moaning, ageing, semi-racist, wannabe 3-series drivers thinks his ball oscillated?

Golfs rules are not sacred, golden, a last bastion of honesty or any other cliched horse poop you can think of.

No wonder he stormed off after hearing another arse wipe had phoned in about a rules violation picked up after they had watched the clip in HD super slo mo. No doubt while beating one off.



Super

Why are you fixated on all this rules are sacred ground nonsense, I would hope to count on a fellow dawkins fan in these circumstances to question such blatant disregard for reason?

Although I was going to say something similar about TW giving a rats ass about what anyone thinks, surely that is the raison d'etre of a golf discussion forum. So don't be a dick.

Feel free to voice an opinion on here, just don't pretend it means anything to anyone else. Tiger follows the rules as much as he needs to. Which also happens to be the same degree to which all other top pros follow the rules.

There are cases of very odd golf club types - eg Brain davies or the other pillock that dq'ed himself - that will pander to the typical clubhouse expert, but they probably also think an exciting night in is watching pauper seve highlight reels. Especially all the talk of him only having a 3 iron and a beach to play the game.

McLaren wrote:Feel free to voice an opinion on here, just don't pretend it means anything to anyone else.  

Agreed, though it does rather stimy the discussion...

Talking of stimy, wouldn't it be something if it was reintroduced into golf? Fat Mickelson would probably clean up with no putter just his 66 degree wedge!

Mac - I absolutely take the point you are making and agree Tiger probably doesn't give a flying f**k about what certain people think.

I would suggest not accusing the "moaning, ageing, semi-racist, wannabe 3-series drivers" of thinking his ball oscillated when I believe you are accusing the "moaning, ageing, semi-racist, wannabe 3-series drivers" of thinking it moved (which it has subsequently been proven to have done).

The moaning, ageing, billionaire, world number 1 and 14 times major champion thought it oscillated (or juct claimed it cynically - who knows for certain what he actually thought at the time). 

Good point ruined I thought. Unfortunately an "F".

McLaren wrote:...if a bunch of moaning, ageing, semi-racist, wannabe 3-series drivers ..

Uh-oh..look out everyone, someone missed their bus this morning.

I'm not a wannabe 3 series driver. I am one.

Roller_Coaster wrote:I would like him to. Simply to have lived through the time when the greatest golfer of all time plied his trade. I am a fan of Woods' golf, but the same sentiment/rationale would apply were McIlroy (or A.N. Other) to start pushing towards the record. Jack's last Masters in 86 was before I started playing so I haven't seen him winning let alone in his pomp other than the increasingly sparing glimpses of odd shots on old TV footage.

To have lived, seen and be able to remember it would be something. (If only to probably to end up arguing with the next generation about their Palmer/Nicklaus/Woods!)

Eh?  Given Nicklaus won 18 majors, that's an outrageous claim.  I don't know how old you are but I have lived through Nicklaus' 18 majors and I can assure you the opposition was every bit as tough back then as any presented to Woods.  Indeed, I would say it was a lot tougher.  Latterly, I got bored with Tiger's wins as it seemed to me the opposition were happy to settle for second place.  We had to wait until the autumn of 2009 for a south korean to break the spell.

gaelgowfer wrote:

Roller_Coaster wrote:I would like him to. Simply to have lived through the time when the greatest golfer of all time plied his trade. I am a fan of Woods' golf, but the same sentiment/rationale would apply were McIlroy (or A.N. Other) to start pushing towards the record. Jack's last Masters in 86 was before I started playing so I haven't seen him winning let alone in his pomp other than the increasingly sparing glimpses of odd shots on old TV footage.

To have lived, seen and be able to remember it would be something. (If only to probably to end up arguing with the next generation about their Palmer/Nicklaus/Woods!)

Eh?  Given Nicklaus won 18 majors, that's an outrageous claim.  I don't know how old you are but I have lived through Nicklaus' 18 majors and I can assure you the opposition was every bit as tough back then as any presented to Woods.  Indeed, I would say it was a lot tougher.  Latterly, I got bored with Tiger's wins as it seemed to me the opposition were happy to settle for second place.  We had to wait until the autumn of 2009 for a south korean to break the spell.

Really? I would have thought that with the multitudes that now play golf, that the chances of someone beating TW would be a lot higher than when the 30-40 rednecks that played the game when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Roller_Coaster wrote:Mac - I absolutely take the point you are making and agree Tiger probably doesn't give a flying f**k about what certain people think.

I would suggest not accusing the "moaning, ageing, semi-racist, wannabe 3-series drivers" of thinking his ball oscillated when I believe you are accusing the "moaning, ageing, semi-racist, wannabe 3-series drivers" of thinking it moved (which it has subsequently been proven to have done).

The moaning, ageing, billionaire, world number 1 and 14 times major champion thought it oscillated (or juct claimed it cynically - who knows for certain what he actually thought at the time). 

Good point ruined I thought. Unfortunately an "F".

Yep. Really. I would like to witness someone beat the majors record. It's not an outrageous claim of anything, simply a statement that I would like to witness someone beat the existing record. I'm not old enough to have seen Nicklaus create the history so I'd like to see someone better it and at the moment it's only realistically likely to be Woods.

No comment was made in respect of Nicklaus' peers nor of the fields now. Although that's the beauty of opinion, aspects like that will keep the debate rolling for all time regardless of stats.

MontysMerkin wrote:

gaelgowfer wrote:

Roller_Coaster wrote:I would like him to. Simply to have lived through the time when the greatest golfer of all time plied his trade. I am a fan of Woods' golf, but the same sentiment/rationale would apply were McIlroy (or A.N. Other) to start pushing towards the record. Jack's last Masters in 86 was before I started playing so I haven't seen him winning let alone in his pomp other than the increasingly sparing glimpses of odd shots on old TV footage.

To have lived, seen and be able to remember it would be something. (If only to probably to end up arguing with the next generation about their Palmer/Nicklaus/Woods!)

Eh?  Given Nicklaus won 18 majors, that's an outrageous claim.  I don't know how old you are but I have lived through Nicklaus' 18 majors and I can assure you the opposition was every bit as tough back then as any presented to Woods.  Indeed, I would say it was a lot tougher.  Latterly, I got bored with Tiger's wins as it seemed to me the opposition were happy to settle for second place.  We had to wait until the autumn of 2009 for a south korean to break the spell.

Really? I would have thought that with the multitudes that now play golf, that the chances of someone beating TW would be a lot higher than when the 30-40 rednecks that played the game when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.

The only problem with this (and there's no decent way of assessing it) is that I would argue the players Nicklaus was contending against regularly in the majors etc were a far tougher proposition that the current crop. He was regularly contending with Watson, Palmer, Floyd, Wadkins, Trevino, Miller, Weiskopf, Crenshaw, Player etc etc and latterly Norman, Faldo, Ballesteros. Most of that was in an era when you actually had to win (a lot) to be a multi-millionaire. These days, once you're on Tour, you're made for life.
There may be more players of a decent standard now, but I'd argue they aren't the hardened winners Nicklaus had to beat week in, week out.
Anyway, as with all this stuff...it's just opinion.

navyblueshorts wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:

gaelgowfer wrote:

Roller_Coaster wrote:I would like him to. Simply to have lived through the time when the greatest golfer of all time plied his trade. I am a fan of Woods' golf, but the same sentiment/rationale would apply were McIlroy (or A.N. Other) to start pushing towards the record. Jack's last Masters in 86 was before I started playing so I haven't seen him winning let alone in his pomp other than the increasingly sparing glimpses of odd shots on old TV footage.

To have lived, seen and be able to remember it would be something. (If only to probably to end up arguing with the next generation about their Palmer/Nicklaus/Woods!)

Eh?  Given Nicklaus won 18 majors, that's an outrageous claim.  I don't know how old you are but I have lived through Nicklaus' 18 majors and I can assure you the opposition was every bit as tough back then as any presented to Woods.  Indeed, I would say it was a lot tougher.  Latterly, I got bored with Tiger's wins as it seemed to me the opposition were happy to settle for second place.  We had to wait until the autumn of 2009 for a south korean to break the spell.

Really? I would have thought that with the multitudes that now play golf, that the chances of someone beating TW would be a lot higher than when the 30-40 rednecks that played the game when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.

The only problem with this (and there's no decent way of assessing it) is that I would argue the players Nicklaus was contending against regularly in the majors etc were a far tougher proposition that the current crop. He was regularly contending with Watson, Palmer, Floyd, Wadkins, Trevino, Miller, Weiskopf, Crenshaw, Player etc etc and latterly Norman, Faldo, Ballesteros. Most of that was in an era when you actually had to win (a lot) to be a multi-millionaire. These days, once you're on Tour, you're made for life.
There may be more players of a decent standard now, but I'd argue they aren't the hardened winners Nicklaus had to beat week in, week out.
Anyway, as with all this stuff...it's just opinion.

Guess so, but I would have thought that in a sport like golf (where you can have a red hot week - hence the number of 1st time winners latterly) it would be much harder to win consistently, unlike when there would have been only say 10 blokes competing (for the win) week in week out. Not to detract from any-ones performance really, just thinking about it logically.

gaelgowfer wrote: I don't know how old you are but I have lived through Nicklaus' 18 majors and I can assure you the opposition was every bit as tough back then as any presented to Woods.  Indeed, I would say it was a lot tougher.  Latterly, I got bored with Tiger's wins as it seemed to me the opposition were happy to settle for second place.  We had to wait until the autumn of 2009 for a south korean to break the spell.

.
COMPETITIVE DEPTH

When I started out, there were probably twenty or so guys who could win in any given week, of whom you'd really look at maybe five. Today there are probably a hundred or so possible winners of any PGA Tour event, with about twenty you'd favor. It's simply a matter of more players playing better.

The only limit on this escalation in the future that I can see will be access to the tour. Obviously, no matter how many guys are good enough to play on the big tour, the number who can do so is limited by the size of fields that can be accommodated.

The above is WORD for WORD quoted from the 2005 updated edition of Jack Nicklaus' Golf My Way.

So now my quandary is... hmmmm... to who's opinion should I to give more weight? The guy who many believe to be the greatest player of all time and has lived it and seen it himself...  or.... or... or...  hmmmm.

OK... I've decided... I think I'll go with Jack Nicklaus...

I think Nicklaus is right in what he says about competitive depth now as opposed to his era, he's right in that there are many more that can win and do win. By the same token I can see the other side of the coin...because there were less winners from a smaller group in his day, those winners in that smaller group were actually hardened winners. That may go part of the way to explaining why Nicklaus, whilst he won so many was also pipped in so many...(50 top 3's in Majors) because he was regularly going down the stretch with guys like Player, Palmer, Watson, Trevino and latterly in his career Ballesteros, Faldo. Now...take the best 6 players from the Woods era and add their majors up, see how close the total gets to the total for the 6 mentioned. Of course you could flip that the other way and say thats because Woods was so dominant...Perhaps he was for a bit of a golden 6-10 year period but I've said this before....Woods is almost certainly more talented I don't think that is in dispute, but I doubt very much now that he'll have the longevity to overtake Nicklaus's Major record. Sure it wont be for lack of trying but the signs are beginning to show that desperation and straw clutching are perhaps beginning to set in. Finally, I know its a completely different era especially in terms of intense media focus but was Nicklaus ever involved in any rules controversies??

Take a look at tennis: the depth of field is defo much deeper today than 30 years ago, yet still 2-3-4 players stand out. A bit like golf I'd say.

Do the golf fans in the UK know about Chamblee and his 'agenda' against Woods?

Chamblee has apologised to le Tigre via twitter.

On a side note, does anyone out there feel a bit sorry for Tiger? He gets branded a cheat by Chamblee, racially abused by Garcia, dissed by Greg Norman(on a monthly basis), and criticised regularly by Miller, Haney et al.

Even super realist would sympathise with the year he's had!

GPB

It seems the norm to have an anti woods agenda at the moment.  Even normally rational types like kwini are drawn into tiger hating.  It is like people didn't want to follow the heard and be tiger fans.  Well now thats been turned on its head will some of the tiger haters do the unique thing and actually support tiger?


Anyway, Chamblee backpedaling fast as he realises that making untrue and unproven negative remarks about someone with expensive lawyers is bad for you career and bank balance.

pudding head Chamblee wrote:Golf is a gentleman's game and I'm not proud of this debate. I want to apologize to Tiger for this incited discourse.

Incon

As we saw earlier this year it is impossible to persuade the conservative golf crowd that what Sergio said was racist. Very sad indeed.

  x infinity.

McLaren wrote:GPB

It seems the norm to have an anti woods agenda at the moment.  Even normally rational types like kwini are drawn into tiger hating.  It is like people didn't want to follow the heard and be tiger fans.  Well now thats been turned on its head will some of the tiger haters do the unique thing and actually support tiger?


Anyway, Chamblee backpedaling fast as he realises that making untrue and unproven negative remarks about someone with expensive lawyers is bad for you career and bank balance.

pudding head Chamblee wrote:Golf is a gentleman's game and I'm not proud of this debate. I want to apologize to Tiger for this incited discourse.

Incon

As we saw earlier this year it is impossible to persuade the conservative golf crowd that what Sergio said was racist.  Very sad indeed.

I woke up, had my coffee, felt wide awake, then read the Daily Mac....yaaaawwwwnnn........zzzzzzzzzzz!!

Mac,
I'm not into "tiger hating", just not a Tiger lover - and it seems the Tiger worshippers are like Ted Cruz and the Tea Party wallies, if you're not one of us, you must hate us.
Not in the least - but I do loathe the Tiger sycophancy (if that is a word), can't understand it to be honest.

Seems like Chamblee has had the frighteners around - what a wussy.

robopz wrote:

gaelgowfer wrote: I don't know how old you are but I have lived through Nicklaus' 18 majors and I can assure you the opposition was every bit as tough back then as any presented to Woods.  Indeed, I would say it was a lot tougher.  Latterly, I got bored with Tiger's wins as it seemed to me the opposition were happy to settle for second place.  We had to wait until the autumn of 2009 for a south korean to break the spell.

.
COMPETITIVE DEPTH

When I started out, there were probably twenty or so guys who could win in any given week, of whom you'd really look at maybe five. Today there are probably a hundred or so possible winners of any PGA Tour event, with about twenty you'd favor. It's simply a matter of more players playing better.

The only limit on this escalation in the future that I can see will be access to the tour. Obviously, no matter how many guys are good enough to play on the big tour, the number who can do so is limited by the size of fields that can be accommodated.

The above is WORD for WORD quoted from the 2005 updated edition of Jack Nicklaus' Golf My Way.

So now my quandary is... hmmmm... to who's opinion should I to give more weight? The guy who many believe to be the greatest player of all time and has lived it and seen it himself...  or.... or... or...  hmmmm.

OK... I've decided... I think I'll go with Jack Nicklaus...

A fair point but just because Nicklaus says what he says, doesn't make him correct. Great player but who says he's right on this? I'm not sure it necessarily follows but I won't argue the point! He's wrong though...  

incontinentia wrote:Chamblee has apologised to le Tigre via twitter...

Oh. That's alright then. Ummm, no, it's not. Chamblee's a weasel and he's accused Woods of being a cheat in about the most cowardly way possible. The damage is done and, I'd argue, simply apologising doesn't cut it.

GPB

Yes, I'd heard of the friction between Woods and Chamblee. I imagine Chamblee is a bit miffed a no-mark like himself hasn't the playing record, money, 'success' with the ladies etc etc as Woods.

McLaren wrote:...As we saw earlier this year it is impossible to persuade the conservative golf crowd that what Sergio said was racist.  Very sad indeed.

Oh shove it! You had your opinion and many people had a different one. We get your position already.

navyblueshorts wrote:

incontinentia wrote:Chamblee has apologised to le Tigre via twitter...

Oh. That's alright then. Ummm, no, it's not. Chamblee's a weasel and he's accused Woods of being a cheat in about the most cowardly way possible. The damage is done and, I'd argue, simply apologising doesn't cut it.

GPB

Yes, I'd heard of the friction between Woods and Chamblee. I imagine Chamblee is a bit miffed a no-mark like himself hasn't the playing record, money, 'success' with the ladies etc etc as Woods.

Why not, Why is there such a clamour these days for retribution?

I expect Nine Chins will just let it slide.

super_realist wrote:Why not, Why is there such a clamour these days for retribution?

I expect Nine Chins will just let it slide.

I guess it depends on any perceived impact to Woods' reputation or finances. Maybe Woods will be a lot bigger than Chamblee over this - I don't suppose it'll make much difference to him at the end of the day.
I hope Chamblee burns as I think what he's done is a) pathetic, b) incorrect and c) cowardly. He thinks he's in some legal drama on TV where the Barrister makes some statement he/she knows the Judge will order to be struck from the record and will even tell the jury to disregard. But the damage is done. The idea is already in the jurors minds.

As much as I can't stand Woods, he does at least tend not to rise to comments.

Kwini

You cannot pretend your coverage of Tiger is positive. If this were moms net it might be ok to continually mention his morals on or of the course but from you I would rather just hear what you think about tigers results and what he might achieve in terms of his golf. You manage to refrain from boring us about the likes of Ernie Els or Adam Scott's contribution to the wider world, so why fixate on anything other than Tigers golf?

As far as I can tell not one player (USA or otherwise) has a particularly kind or interesting world view and many have committed worse moral acts than failing to admit whether a ball oscillated or not.


Navy

I am sorry you don't understand the problems of Garcia's comments but don't try to make ou there is not an important point worth making again and again and again. When golf gets it I will let up.

He does operate in Bubble Woods (suberb of LA?). Sometimes this works to his credit as a protection mechanism other times to his detriment as it projects an aloof/arrogant/untouchable image.

If he keeps schtum on this it may well work in his favour, indeed it appears to have drawn the most positive comment from Super since that week of praise.

McLaren wrote:Kwini

You cannot pretend your coverage of Tiger is positive.  If this were moms net it might be ok to continually mention his morals on or of the course but from you I would rather just hear what you think about tigers results and what he might achieve in terms of his golf.  You manage to refrain from boring us about the likes of Ernie Els or Adam Scott's contribution to the wider world, so why fixate on anything other than Tigers golf?

As far as I can tell not one player (USA or otherwise) has a particularly kind or interesting world view and many have committed worse moral acts than failing to admit whether a ball oscillated or not.


Navy

I am sorry you don't understand the problems of Garcia's comments but don't try to make ou there is not an important point worth making again and again and again.  When golf gets it I will let up.

And precisely how many have you heard?

McLaren wrote:...Navy

I am sorry you don't understand the problems of Garcia's comments but don't try to make ou there is not an important point worth making again and again and again.  When golf gets it I will let up.

I understand perfectly the potential issues with Garcia's comments and your position. We differ in his intent however. I'm willing to cut him some slack re. his understanding of what they can mean whereas you aren't. You see racism in everything, I don't necessarily.

super_realist wrote:And precisely how many have you heard?

He's not interested in that sort of analysis S_R. As far as he's concerned, all golfers are racist and insular .

Mac,
I don't begin to understand what you're prattling on about. Except I think you prove my point - if anyone doesn't love Tiger they must hate him.

I usually talk very positively about Els (tho' he was a bit miserable when we followed him at the PGA and I said so - when I brought up some time ago his charitable work for autism there ensued reams of useless rhetoric about the definition of autism so lesson learned there). And often mention what a pleasure it is to follow Adam Scott.

Not sure what else you want but I seldom if ever mention the salacious side of E.T.W. in my weekly thread - perhaps you wish I would so you could get on your Tiger bandwagon again. Not going to happen, sorry.

Kwini

I guess my point is that were a historian to read these threads they would be under the impression that the tiger years were nothing special as people seemed so reluctant to send praise tigers way.

Yet reading comments about Seve (who is nothing compared to tiger) for example you would think he was of equal standard to Tiger.

You give enough praise for everyone Mac.

I have to say I haven't found golf to be that racist - certainly no more so that general life and actually much less so than when I played football at a reasonable level.

I also have to say that I find Mac's perspective and position hilarious - to appoint himself the arbiter of what's right and the lead crusader to stamp out racism in golf is all very Wolfie in Citizen Smith.  To actually think that him "not letting up" (and I suspect the only thing he actually does is bang on here - I doubt he's written to the R&A or the PGA, I see no evidence of a campaign idea or a communications strategy), until "golf gets it" is just on the funny side of pathetic.

Mac,
You're full of it.
As far as my threads are concerned I always acknowledge TW to be the best golfer of his time. Apologies for not doing it every thread but, as super says, you do it enough for all of us.
And I seldom mention Seve, except in a historical context, as one would for one of the top 20 or 30 best golfers of all time. And possibly the most charismatic.

Why is Seve "nothing compared to tiger"? In what respect?
I think you're losing it. You need to sit down and pour yourself another drink, Mac.

I just started the next drink, so don't worry kwini.

Sorry, I realise I have made it sound like I mean your threads in particular, but I meant the site in general.

Especially the seve remark, as it seems that seve is probably one of the boards most deified figures. I did not mean I thought you talked about him a lot. He is nothing compared to tiger in terms of his ability to win golf tournaments.

He was also a shockingly poor philanderer compared to tiger, but still treated his wife's quite poorly.

Bob_the_Job wrote:I have to say I haven't found golf to be that racist - certainly no more so that general life and actually much less so than when I played football at a reasonable level.

Agreed, mind you it's difficult to be racist when the golf is predominantly white (we have no members of any ethnic minorities, and many would boot out the women given the chance!)

Shame Seve's "wife's quite poorly", Seve too of course.

Perhaps, like Lindsey, she'll be making her comeback at (and you couldn't make this up, could you?) Beaver Creek.

kwinigolfer wrote:Shame Seve's "wife's quite poorly", Seve too of course.

Perhaps, like Lindsey, she'll be making her comeback at (and you couldn't make this up, could you?) Beaver Creek.

I dont get what you are saying?

Are you taking the urine over a grammatical error?

Mac