Faldo isn't gonna back down, nor is woods. i do not believe Faldo is doing it solely for Attention or to make a story, he has done a few things similar throughout his playing career, it isn't a new thing, i just think thats the way Nick is.
If Tiger does what ESPN.com is saying and doesn't use his driver this week, then Tiger's play should speak for itself "against" Faldo if you want to call it that. If Tiger's hitting fairways (and putting at least halfway decent), Faldo's scores for the first two rounds will likely be left in the dust.
hmmm another Nicklaus/Woods debate, i think if they were both pro at the same time and the same age with the same equipment, it would be too close too call.
It's not a Nicklaus/Woods debate. I'm simply stating that in the summer of 2000, not even Jack Nicklaus in his prime would be able to match up with and beat Tiger Woods. Plain and simple. Jack is the best ever over the long haul in my opinion, but I also think Tiger (at his best) played better golf than anyone ever has when he dominated at Pebble and St. Andrew's in 2000.
If Tiger does what ESPN.com is saying and doesn't use his driver this week, then Tiger's play should speak for itself "against" Faldo if you want to call it that. If Tiger's hitting fairways (and putting at least halfway decent), Faldo's scores for the first two rounds will likely be left in the dust.
i would love Faldo to do well, but an older Faldo who's concentration isn't fully on golf will miss most cuts anyway.
i would love Faldo to do well, but an older Faldo who's concentration isn't fully on golf will miss most cuts anyway.
Exactly. However, I think he stands a good chance of making the cut this week. It's his favorite tournament and the course won't be playing long. Also, it looks like scoring won't be too difficult either. So that gives him a good shot to make the cut at least in my opinion.
It's not a Nicklaus/Woods debate. I'm simply stating that in the summer of 2000, not even Jack Nicklaus in his prime would be able to match up with and beat Tiger Woods. Plain and simple. Jack is the best ever over the long haul in my opinion, but I also think Tiger (at his best) played better golf than anyone ever has when he dominated at Pebble and St. Andrew's in 2000.
i can't disagree with you, Tiger dominated the game like no other. and Nicklaus certainly couldn't match the Tiger of 5-6 years ago, no one could.
but the point is, its impossible to say as they were playing at there prime in totally different era's against totally different fields, with totally different equipment. the only thing that can compare them is the way they beat those fields and Nicklaus wins on that score as Tiger is nowhere near finished, when Tiger reaches 50+ it will be very close. although im betting on the already retired Nicklaus to be named as the ''greatest ever'' in 50 years.
Exactly. However, I think he stands a good chance of making the cut this week. It's his favorite tournament and the course won't be playing long. Also, it looks like scoring won't be too difficult either. So that gives him a good shot to make the cut at least in my opinion.
i can't see him making the cut mate, and his mind is gonna be elsewhere anyway.
i can't see him making the cut mate, and his mind is gonna be elsewhere anyway.
I'd definitely agree his mind will be elsewhere, with his network being the broadcaster of this event. Poor guy...he signed up with the network that happens to broadcast his favorite tournament, which ironically gets him paid but also causes him mental distraction from doing his best in the tournament.
i was also referring to his feud with Woods, and i dont think he's mind is fully into the playing golf side of things anymore. he may make the cut and surprise me, but i can't see it myself, but hopefully he will prove me wrong and go on to win it.
I say Faldo rises to the occasion and makes the cut with no problem. "Go on to win it" is very far-fetched because one does not just pull that kind of performance out of nowhere. However he did finish T-11th last year and conceivably could do something similar again. If he plays well that would be sufficient to mess with Tiger's mind a little - it's like people have said, it seems he relishes that possibility and is willing to needle Tiger some more rather than backing off anything he said previously
I say Faldo rises to the occasion and makes the cut with no problem. "Go on to win it" is very far-fetched because one does not just pull that kind of performance out of nowhere. However he did finish T-11th last year and conceivably could do something similar again. If he plays well that would be sufficient to mess with Tiger's mind a little - it's like people have said, it seems he relishes that possibility and is willing to needle Tiger some more rather than backing off anything he said previously
i was joking about him going on to win it, i dont think he will make the cut.
he might wanna make the cut and try to play better than Tiger, but a Tiger Woods who is gonna be thinking his way around the course is gonna be hard for anyone to beat, especially an aging Faldo.
While we probably don't know all the facts, this situation is very similar to the experience several media members have had with Tiger over the years. If you write a critical article or question his swing changes on air, you're on his black list. Peter Kostis had some harsh comments about Woods' swing changes when the Great One started working with Haney, and suddenly found out world #1 would no longer do post round interviews with him. Several writers have had similar experiences.
Think about it. You're a member of the media. The biggest story in golf will cut you off cold if deign to be honest with your opinions. Think that has any affect on how they report?
I think for the most part Tiger handles himself well, and he represents his sport adequately. Nevertheless, he's no Roger Federer. He lacks any hint of humility, and while he's his own man, he never learned to lose with the dignity and grace Nicklaus consistently showed us. He does a lot of good work through his foundation, but would anyone say he has the generosity of spirit like Palmer?
Look at the way Woods left Fuzzy twisting in the wind after his dumb remarks at the 1997 Masters. Or that flap with Vijay over his caddy's "Tiger Who?" cap. He gets into these terribly small minded tiffs. Everyone remembers Trevino pulling out the snake and tossing it at Jack on the first tee of an 18-hole playoff. Did Jack make a big deal out of it, or blame Lee's antics for losing? Of course not. You never heard of Arnold having bad blood with anyone, in golf or business.
Tough acts to follow, but it is quite fair for someone of his stature should be held to those kind of high standards.
I don't want to sound petty or mean spirited, but IMO he simply lacks class sometimes. That's something you either have or you don't.
As for Faldo, while he did have his arrogant and surly days when he was the top dog, I think he has endeared himself to many the last few years. He has definitely mellowed, refined his self-deprecation, and has evolved into a public persona which is genuine and likeable. He's no saint, but I think this is kept alive by Tiger's reluctance to let it go, not any effort by Nick fanning the flames.
While we probably don't know all the facts, this situation is very similar to the experience several media members have had with Tiger over the years. If you write a critical article or question his swing changes on air, you're on his black list. Peter Kostis had some harsh comments about Woods' swing changes when the Great One started working with Haney, and suddenly found out world #1 would no longer do post round interviews with him. Several writers have had similar experiences.
Think about it. You're a member of the media. The biggest story in golf will cut you off cold if deign to be honest with your opinions. Think that has any affect on how they report?
I think for the most part Tiger handles himself well, and he represents his sport adequately. Nevertheless, he's no Roger Federer. He lacks any hint of humility, and while he's his own man, he never learned to lose with the dignity and grace Nicklaus consistently showed us. He does a lot of good work through his foundation, but would anyone say he has the generosity of spirit like Palmer?
Look at the way Woods left Fuzzy twisting in the wind after his dumb remarks at the 1997 Masters. Or that flap with Vijay over his caddy's "Tiger Who?" cap. He gets into these terribly small minded tiffs. Everyone remembers Trevino pulling out the snake and tossing it at Jack on the first tee of an 18-hole playoff. Did Jack make a big deal out of it, or blame Lee's antics for losing? Of course not. You never heard of Arnold having bad blood with anyone, in golf or business.
Tough acts to follow, but it is quite fair for someone of his stature should be held to those kind of high standards.
I don't want to sound petty or mean spirited, but IMO he simply lacks class sometimes. That's something you either have or you don't.
As for Faldo, while he did have his arrogant and surly days when he was the top dog, I think he has endeared himself to many the last few years. He has definitely mellowed, refined his self-deprecation, and has evolved into a public persona which is genuine and likeable. He's no saint, but I think this is kept alive by Tiger's reluctance to let it go, not any effort by Nick fanning the flames.
i agree with you, but id probably say its a bit of both, not just Tiger's doing.
ok your probably right about the handshake (i only flicked through an article, but i bet Tiger said it with hatred in his voice).
I watched the full Tiger press conference.
They were asking him would he talk to Tiger between handshakes and he said that was up to Nick.
Then they said, if Nick were to talk to you, how would you react.
Tiger said, I'd be very surprised and got a big laugh off the media.
The Monty interview was very humourous too.
And they were asking Harrington about winning his home major. He just said that there were no majors in Ireland, so it wasn't his home major, but it was the major he grew up most wanting to win.
For people talking about Tiger at his best against other greats at their best, that argument is unprovable and unimportant.
Who knows what Nicklaus would have been able to do with modern equipment.
And how is someone's best defined. Does that mean that you would pick Tiger's play at his very best tournament, and match it against Jack's play at his very best tournament? Or is it on the average play of a few tournament?
The reality is that they would both beat each other in different tournaments.
The important thing is that Jack is the greatest. Tiger may become the greatest, but he isn't yet.
July 18th, 2006, 11:06 PM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
