OT: Tiger - Not only a cheat . . . . | Page 2 | The Boneyard

OT: Tiger - Not only a cheat . . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
doggydaddy said:
He didn't lie. He thought he took a proper drop, the official told him it was ok so he signed the scorecard. To say he lied is just wrong.
Expand ...
To think he didn't know what he was doing is just naive. If we've learned anything about Tiger, we've learned he lies, cheats, and is a dirtbag. Just ask Elin.
 
People either like, or dislike Tiger. If they dislike him, they are more likely inclined to think he lies, cheats, or worse. If they like him, they are more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think Tiger was a pig when it came to handling his family, and was glad to see him fall from the ranks of the elite at the time. But to call the guy a cheat and liar simply reflects on the person doing the name calling. There's zero evidence Tiger lied with regards to Sergio. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary.

I actually admire Tiger for calling out Sergio as a whiner and complainer, since it's not the first time Sergio has behaved that way. As for the scorecard thing, seriously? You can say he made a mistake, but liar? Cheater? I wasn't there so I can't speak to it. I don't know the circumstances, but from what I've read about it, that seems extreme.

Maybe part of the reason I feel "defensive" of Tiger is with regards to Geno. Mostly the fans who "hate" him are of the orange variety. Their views are ridiculously skewed, and are based on a hyper hatred of everything related to UCONN and Geno. Not only do they still make degrading comments about him personally, but also continuously call him a liar, cheat, slime, etc. Most objective (non UCONN or Tennessee fans) know those things are wrong, but that doesn't stop the crazies from chirping.

My point is, if one already really despises Tiger, they are much more likely to give zero benefit of doubt, and assume anything negative said about him is true.
 
meyers7 said:
To think he didn't know what he was doing is just naive. If we've learned anything about Tiger, we've learned he lies, cheats, and is a dirtbag. Just ask Elin.
Expand ...

Earth to Meyers: We've also learned over the years that Tiger is a very calculating guy, like most control-freak types. If he really thought his drop was improper when he took it, he had plenty of time to think on it after the round was complete and before the presser, wherein he would not have opened his big fat mouth in describing his thought process (re: the drop) in so much detail.

Opinions vary as to what he should have done once the can of worms was opened. But in my book, cheating = a knowing violation at the time of commission, which this wasn't. And he wasn't lying in the presser - he openly copped to dropping back a short distance for advantage(!). I happen to think he would have done a great service to the game by W/D'ing after the dust had settled but as the tournament committee's decision was to assess 2 strokes, he had the option to play on, and did. I think Jack would have W/D in the same situation.
 
Icebear said:
...has left a bad taste in the mouths of many in the past giving them sufficient motivation to seek to embarass...
Expand ...
-Well you’re right, of course, I’d have to agree. And its only natural, thereafter, that we hold the player to a higher standard than their opponents, and certainly ourselves, because
- Wait. Hold on. Aw, now I’m confused again. Hey, am I still on the We Hate Skylar thread, or is this the We Hate Tiger thread?
 
.-.
ericsandiego said:
People either like, or dislike Tiger. If they dislike him, they are more likely inclined to think he lies, cheats, or worse. If they like him, they are more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think Tiger was a pig when it came to handling his family, and was glad to see him fall from the ranks of the elite at the time. But to call the guy a cheat and liar simply reflects on the person doing the name calling. There's zero evidence Tiger lied with regards to Sergio. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary.

I actually admire Tiger for calling out Sergio as a whiner and complainer, since it's not the first time Sergio has behaved that way. As for the scorecard thing, seriously? You can say he made a mistake, but liar? Cheater? I wasn't there so I can't speak to it. I don't know the circumstances, but from what I've read about it, that seems extreme.

Maybe part of the reason I feel "defensive" of Tiger is with regards to Geno. Mostly the fans who "hate" him are of the orange variety. Their views are ridiculously skewed, and are based on a hyper hatred of everything related to UCONN and Geno. Not only do they still make degrading comments about him personally, but also continuously call him a liar, cheat, slime, etc. Most objective (non UCONN or Tennessee fans) know those things are wrong, but that doesn't stop the crazies from chirping.

My point is, if one already really despises Tiger, they are much more likely to give zero benefit of doubt, and assume anything negative said about him is true.
Expand ...

Agreed Eric. I have always liked Tiger. Therefore, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me. To say he cheats at anything other than marriage is without merit. I despise what he did to Elin. As a married man, I find that reprehensible. At the same time, to think Elin has not benefited from the marriage to Tiger is foolish. She may even be better off now, with $100 million reasons and freedom from the Tiger aura.

I would agree that Tiger isn't the greatest guy and doesn't have the best image regardless of his past transgressions during his marriage. He's known to be snobbish and arrogant, but damn he is a great golfer. I believe he holds the game on a very high pedestal and would not cheat at the game itself.
 
Nice catch CT....
If you follow this: "Two Players marshals, John North and Gary Anderson, were quoted by SI as saying that Woods didn't ask any marshals about Garcia's status, and none was given. "He didn't ask us nothing and we didn't say nothing," Anderson said to SI about Woods. "We're told not to talk to the players.""

With the use of the double - negative, it sounds to me like he did ask something and they did say something ;)
 
ericsandiego said:
There's zero evidence Tiger lied with regards to Sergio. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary.
Expand ...
Well that's not true. There is evidence he lied. He said the Marshall's had cleared him, the Marshalls (at least one) said no they didn't. He's either lying or the Marshall is. I'm more inclined to believe the Marshall because we know Tiger is not above lying.

ericsandiego said:
As for the scorecard thing, seriously? You can say he made a mistake, but liar? Cheater? I wasn't there so I can't speak to it. I don't know the circumstances, but from what I've read about it, that seems extreme.
Expand ...
Oh you guys are so naive. As some one posted Tiger is very calculating. He knew what he was doing. He's the best golfer in the world. He doesn't know the rules? He knows exactly what he can get away with.
 
VAMike23 said:
Earth to Meyers: We've also learned over the years that Tiger is a very calculating guy, like most control-freak types. If he really thought his drop was improper when he took it, he had plenty of time to think on it after the round was complete and before the presser, wherein he would not have opened his big fat mouth in describing his thought process (re: the drop) in so much detail.

Opinions vary as to what he should have done once the can of worms was opened. But in my book, cheating = a knowing violation at the time of commission, which this wasn't. And he wasn't lying in the presser - he openly copped to dropping back a short distance for advantage(!). I happen to think he would have done a great service to the game by W/D'ing after the dust had settled but as the tournament committee's decision was to assess 2 strokes, he had the option to play on, and did. I think Jack would have W/D in the same situation.
Expand ...

I like the analysis. What I have trouble getting my head around is Tiger's admitted thought process. 'I can get an advantage by dropping back a few feet.' That very thought process screams violation. The whole incident is just very strange and golf is the loser in this little melodrama.
 
.-.
meyers7 said:
Well that's not true. There is evidence he lied. He said the Marshall's had cleared him, the Marshalls (at least one) said no they didn't. He's either lying or the Marshall is. I'm more inclined to believe the Marshall because we know Tiger is not above lying.

Oh you guys are so naive. As some one posted Tiger is very calculating. He knew what he was doing. He's the best golfer in the world. He doesn't know the rules? He knows exactly what he can get away with.
Expand ...
Perfect example of my point. Thanks for helping me make it! And calling those who don't agree with you "naive" is also a perfect example of childishness directed at those who disagree with you. But hey, haters are gonna hate!
 
Tiger's agent from the Yahoo article: "The comments from the marshals in today's story definitively show that Tiger was telling the truth about being told Sergio had hit. I hope this demonstrates to some reporters the importance of accuracy and not jumping to misplaced conclusions.''

Media reporters are aware that there is a segment of the population that hates Tiger, has hated him since before he turned pro and will hate him long after he retires. Some in the media pander to them. So when anything happens that can remotely be interpreted as showing Tiger in a bad light they leap on it like gulls at the beach eating a discarded sandwich, never stopping to fact check as they fall over each other to be the first to throw a shovel of dirt on Tiger.
 
The whole backswing bru ha ha is silly for reasons discussed at length above. Tiger took a drop after his drive hit the water that was "aggressive" at best. That could be worthy of discussion, but as the PGA observed, the judgment is left to the player and his playing partner. Tiger's recovery shot was a thing of beauty, but, in truth, the drop should have been easily 80 or more yards back toward the tee.
 
RockyMTblue2 said:
The whole backswing bru ha ha is silly for reasons discussed at length above. Tiger took a drop after his drive hit the water that was "aggressive" at best. That could be worthy of discussion, but as the PGA observed, the judgment is left to the player and his playing partner. Tiger's recovery shot was a thing of beauty, but, in truth, the drop should have been easily 80 or more yards back toward the tee.
Expand ...
So, are you saying the playing partner cheated for Tiger? What are you basing your eighty yard estimate on?
 
No, doggy, I am not saying that at all. I do not think anyone cheated. The overhead (blimp?) shot of Tiger's drive had his ball cross into the water hazard very far back from where it touched down in roughly the middle of the water. He dropped it almost laterally from the point where splashed down. That is why the commentator called it very aggressive. But the rules leave it to the players to make the call and they did and that is that. There were a number of gold media folk commenting on it the next day. I was watching live and that 80 yards is just an eye ball guess. The ball crossed into the hazard very far back from where Tiger dropped it. Just one of the vagaries of the game. My point was there was more to discuss there than that whole silly tee fiasco.
 
.-.
RockyMTblue2 said:
No, doggy, I am not saying that at all. I do not think anyone cheated. The overhead (blimp?) shot of Tiger's drive had his ball cross into the water hazard very far back from where it touched down in roughly the middle of the water. He dropped it almost laterally from the point where splashed down. That is why the commentator called it very aggressive. But the rules leave it to the players to make the call and they did and that is that. There were a number of gold media folk commenting on it the next day. I was watching live and that 80 yards is just an eye ball guess. The ball crossed into the hazard very far back from where Tiger dropped it. Just one of the vagaries of the game. My point was there was more to discuss there than that whole silly tee fiasco.
Expand ...
I thought he got a break on that drop, but the guy that is supposed to protect the field said he had a perfect view and it was correct. You know what, those guys have pretty good eyes and distance judgment. It's over in my opinion.
 
uconnfan68 said:
I thought he got a break on that drop, but the guy that is supposed to protect the field said he had a perfect view and it was correct. You know what, those guys have pretty good eyes and distance judgment. It's over in my opinion.
Expand ...

Ditto. It's over. My point was this one should have never begun. But, it is free country and the IRS is unlikely to audit either side!
 
meyers7 said:
Oh you guys are so naive. As some one posted Tiger is very calculating. He knew what he was doing. He's the best golfer in the world. He doesn't know the rules? He knows exactly what he can get away with.
Expand ...



You'd be surprised. Most of these guys have been playing in marshaled tournaments since they were 12. There has always been an official around to explain rules. Good amateurs are far more knowledgeable about rules than tour pros. I am constantly annoyed watching on TV when a rather routine drop becomes a huge delay because the players are unsure of the rule and call for a rules official.
.
But back a ways in this thread you agreed that the whole point was whether or not Tiger lied. Now we know that a marshal told Tiger that Sergio had hit and that yes indeed, a marshal has stated that he said exactly that to Tiger. The SI writer has "clarified" his article to say that Tiger did not lie.
 
ericsandiego said:
Perfect example of my point. Thanks for helping me make it! And calling those who don't agree with you "naive" is also a perfect example of childishness directed at those who disagree with you. But hey, haters are gonna hate!
Expand ...
Ah you are incorrect. Not naive because you don't agree with me, naive because you think Tiger is an upstanding person. He's not, he's what is generally referred to as a douchbag, jerk, etc. And certainly lies and certainly cheats. Just the way it is.
 
meyers7 said:
Ah see well that's something different. Now we have a Marshall who says nothing was said to Tiger and one who says something was said to Tiger. But why would one believe one Marshall over another? Unless one was a Tiger apologist. hmmmmm. This gets more interesting all the time.
Expand ...
It is quite possible that each is only speaking for their own part. In which case it still favors that Tiger wasn't lying nor was either marshall. Each marshall can only speak for what they were aware of.
 
.-.
meyers7 said:
Ah you are incorrect. Not naive because you don't agree with me, naive because you think Tiger is an upstanding person. He's not, he's what is generally referred to as a douchbag, jerk, etc. And certainly lies and certainly cheats. Just the way it is.
Expand ...

On his wife. And I don't think you want the percentages on athletes who cheat on their wife. Yes, even in the upstanding (yet somehow racist and sexist) sport of golf.

He's never cheated on the golf course. The proof is pretty clear, he explained his thought process. Had he not done so, he gets away with it. Which means Tiger didn't know he did anything wrong. (Hence, not cheating.)

You clearly can't speak logically about Tiger, though. So I don't know what the point is with this discussion. We have Marshalls saying he did ask, so now they are just apologists. Right.
 
meyers7 said:
Ah see well that's something different. Now we have a Marshall who says nothing was said to Tiger and one who says something was said to Tiger. But why would one believe one Marshall over another? Unless one was a Tiger apologist. hmmmmm. This gets more interesting all the time.
Expand ...

The only interesting thing at this point is that the marshall who says no one said anything to tiger is wrong and appears like another tiger hater as a marshall by the name of Brian Nedrich said he told tiger that sergio had hit already and that should clear that part of it up. As for lying the only one that appears to be caught with his nose growing in this one is sergio who claimed that the crowd noise came on his backswing when a replay clearly showed the crowd noise coming while he was standing over his ball. As for this water drop tiger took the advice from his opponent and opponents caddy who both said they had a clear look as to where the ball crossed and drop should be so enough with that controversy also. I'm not a fan of tigers personal life histrionics but I do enjoy watching what eventually will turn out to be imo the greatest golfer of all time.
 
"Come Monday, though, the head Players Championship marshal, John North, refuted Tiger's account -- even going so far as to say there was no communication between the marshals and Woods at all. He went on to say Tiger's denial "lacked character."
So, did Tiger lie to cover himself?

Maybe not. Now, two other marshals who escorted Woods and Garcia at Sawgrass have come forward and confirmed Tiger's version of events: They said they indeed told him that Garcia had already made his shot, according to the Florida Times-Union.

Both said the claims there was no communication between Woods and volunteers are wrong and said that Woods was only mistaken about the sequence of events.

“It is not true and definitely unfair to Tiger,” said [Brian] Nedrich, who was a marshal at the second hole. “That’s because I was the one Tiger heard say that Sergio had hit.”"
​
​
As I said above different marshalls, different stories. The negative one only means that marshall was unaware of the situation but the affirmative story indicates the events exactly as Tiger reported them. The presence of something always has more weight than the absence which simply indicates a lack of information.​
​
 
wonder what made these marshalls think that sergio had already hit? can't say i've ever thought that these guys are a very impressive looking group. old, overweight, probably hearing and vision challenged. like the ones at my course, who either drive up, or drive away , right in the middle of your backswing.
 
boontonbomber said:
wonder what made these marshalls think that sergio had already hit? can't say i've ever thought that these guys are a very impressive looking group. old, overweight, probably hearing and vision challenged. like the ones at my course, who either drive up, or drive away , right in the middle of your backswing.
Expand ...
What a snarky comment. They are volunteers. Perhaps you get what you pay for?
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,409
Messages
4,571,754
Members
10,477
Latest member
Goose91


Top Bottom