Tiger claims his fourth straight and 52nd victory. Tiger won the WGC-NEC Invitational after defeating Stewart Cink in four playoff holes.

 

 

That weather the last 4 holes was crazy.

That weather the last 4 holes was crazy.

 

Heh, yeah. They had every kind of weather but snow in the playoff.

 

And for those that are interested, ESPN.com is running a feature on Tiger's first 10 years on tour this week.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/features/tigerwoods/index

Which if I am not mistaken, is the name of the game, is it not? To be friendly to those that support you versus being a jag who doesn't have the time of day to even respond to a compliment of "nice shot"? I don't care what Phil is, but I've never had a bad fan experience with him and had several with Woods.

Just curious, but would you like thousands of people following you around all day at work and commenting on everything you do?

Just curious, but would you like thousands of people following you around all day at work and commenting on everything you do?

 

 

 

Nope. That's why I wouldn't have a job that required such things.

Just curious, but would you like thousands of people following you around all day at work and commenting on everything you do?

 

If I got paid his salary? Hell yes I would.

Nope. That's why I wouldn't have a job that required such things.

 

 

If I got paid his salary? Hell yes I would.

There are no stipulations in this question!

 

There go's the hypothetical question argument.

I went to the last two days of the PGA at Medinah. On Sunday I staked out a spot by the third green for the last ten groups and sauntered over to thirteen for the last ten groups.

 

Tiger's group was a circus.

 

Up until the last five groups, you saw the players, their caddies, the standard bearer and the volunteer scorekeeper. With 5 groups to go, you saw a couple of Sheriff's deputies. With three groups to go, you saw all those guys and someone from CBS and a photographer.

 

Tiger's group? All that plus five more CBS folks, two more deputies, a plainclothes security man -- and 30-plus photographers. An absolute zoo.

 

I can't speak to what Steff said. I imagine security around Tiger is different at the Western than at the PGA. But I didn't see any evidence of Tiger acting like a bad guy.

 

The circus that followed him? I can understand why people melt when they are paired with him on Sunday in a major. Having all those people inside the ropes has to be unnerving, to say the least

There are no stipulations in this question!

 

 

I said nope.

 

I can't speak to what Steff said. I imagine security around Tiger is different at the Western than at the PGA. But I didn't see any evidence of Tiger acting like a bad guy.

 

 

 

The PGA compared to the Western was night and day. Security at the gates was comical. Bags were checked and we were wanded at the Western. They just asked at the PGA... "got a phone on ya?" I could have smuggled in anything. The fans act much different at the PGA which could be a factor. A lot more out of towners and they did behave in general better. Maybe that's why.

 

And I have also seen Tiger act like a total prince out there also. Jim and I have traveled to 9 majors over the past 3 years and it's been way more good than bad. The bad just stuck with me.

Vijay Singh started the final round 3 strokes up on second place Tiger. Through 7 holes today, Tiger's 6 under, and he's now two up on Vijay.

 

This shall be fun.

 

Five straight and 53 for the career.

Tiger Woods is good at golf.

Tiger Woods is good at golf.

 

Really?! You just figured that out now? GOD YOU ARE DUMB.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really?! You just figured that out now? GOD YOU ARE DUMB.

You just figured out that I'm dumb? God you are dumb.

You just figured out that I'm dumb? God you are dumb.

 

haha touche

If I was as good as Tiger I would probably be a jagoff 2.If I get a hole-in-one in put-put I pump my fist and make the children back away.I can only imagine if I was walking to the 18th green at the Masters,I would demand green coats for all my friends!

Tiger needs to get a posse that follows him around on the course that cracks everytime he hits a shot.

I know you're all surprised, but Tiger clinches eighth PGA Player of the Year award.

Hello again.

 

Tiger wins his third straight, fifth overall Buick Invitational; it's also his seventh consecutive PGA Tour victory.

Hello again.

 

Tiger wins his third straight, fifth overall Buick Invitational; it's also his seventh consecutive PGA Tour victory.

Insane.

Tiger Woods is good at golf.

Ok, that's it, I think it's finally time for Tiger Woods and Roger Federer to have a duel of some sort. Lance Armstrong will moderate.

Ok, that's it, I think it's finally time for Tiger Woods and Roger Federer to have a duel of some sort. Lance Armstrong will moderate.

 

No kidding, it's real fun to watch both perform.

Federer is good and all, and I really enjoy watching the guy play. But I don't think there should be any question who is the most dominant athlete currently playing any sport - it's Tiger by a mile, and I don't like to admit that, given that it doesn't make golf very fun to watch sometimes. But facts are facts.

Federer is good and all, and I really enjoy watching the guy play. But I don't think there should be any question who is the most dominant athlete currently playing any sport - it's Tiger by a mile, and I don't like to admit that, given that it doesn't make golf very fun to watch sometimes. But facts are facts.

 

I'd disagree. The only person that can beat Federer right now is Nadal on clay. Tiger is beatable, and that has been proven in the past. I mean, Federer's 25 and already has 10 major titles, opposed to Woods having 12 at 31. It's not only plausible, but likely that Federer will have the most majors of all time, and he could have it by age 26-27. By the end of his career, he may have far and away more major titles than any man ever, and he could approach the most majors ever for man or woman (though he'd have to stick around a very long time for that to happen, and he'd have to have luck on his side, both of which are very unlikely).

 

Along the same line of thought, Woods could too. It's hard to say at this point in time.

 

For the moment, they kind of have to be considered just equally dominant, because I'm not sure there's any real way of determining who is moreso.

You're right, perhaps that's a bit of an overreaction on my part, I didn't really back it up. I think I'm mostly biased just because I've got firsthand experience seeing Tiger play so many times and seeing how everybody just folds around the guy.

 

I mean, Federer's 25 and already has 10 major titles, opposed to Woods having 12 at 31. It's not only plausible, but likely that Federer will have the most majors of all time, and he could have it by age 26-27.

 

Looking at the majors though, I think when you compare golf and tennis you must take into account longeivity of careers. Golf has an absurdly long window of opportunity for someone to remain in contention; looking at other golfers one could say that Tiger at 31 is just entering his prime, and can even be competitive long past his prime (a la Nicklaus circa 1986). Nearly all competent PGA golfers play until they're 50, and the great ones play in majors and occasionally make a run past that. He will not be retiring at 35, as is pretty old for a tennis player. Federer in my opinion almost certainly will win five more majors, giving him the most all-time, and if he continues this pace it would be conceivable to beat the women's record too, a long time down the road. But has he done it everywhere, like Woods? I don't think he's ever won the French, and Tiger has the Career Slam and has for a while, beating the best on every type of course. The other point you bring up is Nadal - someone who can be proven to be a consistent foil and challenger to Federer, at least on clay. I don't think Tiger really has anyone that can say they can challenge him and best him on a consistent basis. In his sport, he is peerless, and it almost feels like someone "escapes" with a win from Tiger, rather than wins it outright, when the man is in contention. Nadal can beat Federer, on occasion. Tiger first must beat himself for anybody to have much of a chance. That's what I consider real dominance.

 

On the other hand, when you look at major win percentage, etc., Federer makes a very convincing case - .322, while Tiger's is around .240, I would say. So I'd concede it's very close. However, I think when you take into account what I've said above, as well as some of the differences between the sports that don't translate well (seeded tennis tournaments that make life easier for the #1 early on vs. an open-field format with many more players having a chance to win in golf), I give the edge to Tiger.

 

Sorry this is so long, it's actually just a very interesting topic for me.