LOADED FOR BARE

NY Post ^ | July 16, 2003 | BILL HOFFMANN

[presidio9]

It is your definition of "blowing chunks" is the only thing that completely sucks. Jack Nicklaus, the greatest golfer who ever lived went through similiar periods where he didn't win Majors. And he focused on Majors too. Why did this happen? Because there were a lot of other great players out there, and because there are elements of the game that are beyond the control of even the best players. That said, if he beat a very stong field by FIVE STROKES ten days ago, he is playing extrememly well right now and just getting unlucky in the Majors. It happens.

[TomB]

Yea, but what does "Wavethatflag" think?

[discostu]

Christ dude, why are you so desperate to pick fights? Grow up. Tiger's in a slump, the world isn't going to end, even if he never gets out of this slump he'll still go down in history as one of the greatest golfers ever. Deal.

[discostu]

That the moon rises out of Tiger's...

Better not finish that one.

[Vigilantcitizen]

I come to a thread expecting to read about the wholesome activity of "bareback paintball", and a golf discussion breaks out.

What is this world coming to? We're all gonna die! :)

[discostu]

It's a hoax anyway. This is only the 4th or 5th thread on it, Snopes is in the process of debunking it. Anybody that's ever paintballed know that only twisted fools and pychotic masochists would do it naked. Tthe twisted fools would learn better after the first time they got shot, and the psychotic masochists tend to have unpronouncable diseases not good trophies to "mount".

[presidio9]

I'm not. You're problem, as ususal, is that you take an unimformed position, based on what the liberal media is telling you (and all sports journalists are liberal) and when someone who has a more informed take on the subject tells you why they are wrong, you take it personally.

Example: ESPN reports that Tiger has triple-bogeyed the first hole.

Your take: He should now quit playing golf for the rest of 2003.

The fact that only six players finished under par for the day, and, apart from the bad luck of losing a ball on the first hole, Woods actually shot (-1) for the other 17 holes does not figure into your equation. Stuart Scott says "Woods is in a slump," so therefore, he must be in a slump. He's not. You are not a bad person, but you need to learn that it is ok to admit you are wrong once in a while.

[Vigilantcitizen]

"Anybody that's ever paintballed know that only twisted fools and pychotic masochists would do it naked."

Neck shots especially suck.

BTW...I agree with your side in the Woods debate.

[presidio9]

Nope. All this proves is you are willing to give your opinion on any subject. Especially the ones you never bothered to understand. Like I said, in golf, a little bad luck like losing a ball, can ruin your whole day. Woods has been unlucky, but slumping players do not win tournaments by five strokes. Again, your problem is one of ignorance. I could fix that, if you'd let me. Instead, you seem to relish it. Sure, Woods focuses on Majors. But he also understands the difficulty of winning one. You don't have a clue, and you are proud of that fact.

[discostu]

In sports people make their own luck. The difference between a bad luck streak and a slump is the level of excuse mongering.

Intersting that last year Woods took the entire time between the US Open and British Open off, yet this year he decides to play a pretty low income event (only $810 grand for winning, not bad but pretty low for Tiger) on what is apparently a pretty easy course given that the entire top 12 were in double digits under par.

I have lots of clues. According to the bar Tiger has set for himself both with his previous performance and statements he is simply not playing up to his level. Those are the simple plainly obvious facts even you can verify in a whopping 5 minutes on the PGA Tour website.

[xzins]

wwjd

[discostu]

wcwjwd

[xzins]

gygmp

[presidio9]

This is your problem in a nutshell. You make outrageous claims, and when someone calls you on it you take it personally.

Example:
Your pronouncement that because Tiger tripled bogeyed the first hole of the British Open he should call it quits for the year.

I disagreed, and told you why. You are now in the game of looking all over the place for evidence that "proves" you right. But there's a problem. After the misfortune of a lost ball, Tiger actually played very much like a player who should win the whole thing.

Again, I don't think you are a bad person. And I would save you the trouble research. You're just wrong here and that's ok. Life goes on.

BTW, before you let this go any further, he teed off in the afternoon today, which means he's in the morning tomorrow. He should shoot a much better score. Just let it go dude. I'm not trying to score points off you here. You're just wrong in your assessment. That's all. It's not so bad.

[A Navy Vet]

Is there an observation area?

[discostu]

OK now you've lost me.

[discostu]

Here you go again. Lies lies and more lies.

That's not my claim.

My claim isn't outrageous.

And you're doing everything in your power to make it personal.

There's nothing to let go. He's in a slump, hopefully he can end it. Part of the drama coming into this year's British was that it's generally accepted that the slump started with this tournament last year and this would be the time for him to rise above and over come it. Hopefully he will, so far it doesn't look so good.

[xzins]

heh, heh, heh..... ;-)


(good, you got my point.)

[discostu]

I had "you" and "my" could string it together.