Woody Austin channels Rory Sabbatini: Why such Tiger Woods morons?
Having shot a 67 in Sunday’s final round to Tiger’s 69, Austin crowed, “I beat him today.” Later he argued that he’s convinced that Tiger didn’t even outplay him in the entire tournament, saying, “It just happens that he scored better.” Which is a lot like Spinks arguing that it just so happened that Mike Tyson knocked him out in 91 seconds or Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard advancing the notion that they just so happened to surrender in five minutes even though they were sure they had the better army.
Austin wasn’t done either.
His most idiotic statement may have come when he all but openly mocked Tiger’s unmistakable aura of intimidation.
“I don’t get that either,” Austin said. “What, are we going to fight? Are we going to get into a fight? Why should I be intimidated?”
You can guarantee Austin will be intimidated when Woods gives him his version of the 9 and 8 drilling he put on Stephen Ames.
Really, when will these guys ever learn? Their macho fronting isn’t fooling anybody. All it does is get them on Tiger’s to-destroy list.
|« Tiger Woods kicks the FedEx Cup in the groin||Even after 13th major, Tiger Woods' 63 at PGA still not one of the greatest rounds ever »|
Perhaps you don't understand because you were never a high-level athlete.
Of course, I know you're struggling to conjure up ideas for columns.
player doing well. As things stands, what we do
without Jin, Phil and Tiger?? one thing for
sure! the Europeans kinda hate our guts!
Nevertheless, poor Woody is now over the hill.
Cut him a little slack.
The real question is, what's up Tiger's
persistence with the driver??
I think you are on to something...
Don't forget he also mentioned that he also said he couldn't beat Tiger because Tiger was 'given' a 4 strokes lead.
After watching Austin's post round interviews on Sat and Sun, I concluded that the dude has lost his mind. I really thinks he is tormented by Tiger and borderlining in obsession.
I think the putter did exert its revenge at Hilton Head.
Come on, buddy!
Woods doesn't win EVERY tournament he enters.
AS a matter of fact, at the start of any event that Tiger enters, he has about one chance in four of winning.
Which equates to a 75% probability of someone other than Tiger will be the winner.
That is not to say that Woods' winning percentage isn't excellent. It's the best by a country mile of anyone now competing. And when he is leading going into the last round or even within a stroke or two, he is odds on to win, probably about a 1 to 9 favorite.
But he's not invincible. NOBODY could be invincible on the PGA tour
Let's see he wins 25% of the time, as you say, 1 in 4
chance of winning. I don't know about you but that sounds pretty intimidating, it is golf and that kind of winning percentage is staggering for golf.
WOULDN'T YOU SAY SO????????
Of course, I would say that Tiger's winning percentage was impressive.
And in fact, I did say exactly that in the penultimate paragraph of my post.
I respectfully suggest that you read my posts a little more carefully.
I never would be silly enough to say that Woods isn't the best golfer around for the last ten years.
But I would again say that he is not INVINCIBLE. He doesn't win ALL the tournaments he enters. He doesn't even win half of them. He does win a LOT of them. But he can be beaten, as he is about three quarters of the time. Just ask Nick O'Hern.
Ever since Tiger started winning on Tour, he is the King of the Tour. Nobody wins anymore, they just happen to be lucky that HE did not have his 'A' game.
No doubt, he is the best and will be for a while, but he is the only real star of the Tour and his domination has crushed the level of confidence of everybody else. And I am not blaming him for that, quite the contrary.
1997, Tiger's first Ryder Cup team. Europe wins 4 of those last 5 (except for the 1999 miracle), coincidence? Teams without confidence made of supporting actors. European players are stars on their tour, they believe they can win.
Once again, Tiger cannot be blamed for this situation. The problem is he's too good. But he should not make everybody else shut up, he is not perfect and should let go with the control thing.
I believe Woods is the greatest player of all time, but his character leaves much to be desired.
I do know one thing: If Woody and Tiger were to compete on the merit of their fashion
sense, Tiger would smack down Woody "Remainder Bin" Austin 9&8.
The myth of Tiger intimidation is largely the creation of television announcers and guys like you who insist on perpetuating that myth.
The most popular anecdote about this myth is the one about how Stephen Ames was supposed to have his psyche irreparably damaged by the 9 and 8 trouncing laid on him by Woods in the 2006 Accenture Match Play tournament.
According to the Tiger sycophants, Ames would have a difficult timeholding up his head in public and his golf game would be sure to suffer.
One month later at the prestigious Players' Championship, with arguably the strongest field in golf competing, a field that included the menacing Tiger, Ames proved anything but intimidated. He blew the field away by six strokes, and in the process outscored Tiger by fifteen shots. Tiger finished T22nd.
Now, that is not to say that the pros don't respect Tiger's game, they most certainly do. They fully realize that he has been the best out there for ten years. They know that he is a great front runner, that he can come from behind as well as anyone can, that he can "grind" as no other, and that they will never win as many in their lifetimes as Tiger wins in an average year.
But these guys are PROFESSIONALS in their chosen field. They are the best of the best in the entire world.They have nothing but respect for Tiger and his game, but they are definitely not intimidated. If Nick O'Hern was intimidated, by Woods, he never could have bested Tiger twice in a row. And Nick is at best a journeyman pro.
Thats why Woody Austin trashtalking Tiger holds as much weight as Nicole Richie's undies so I dont respect his schtick. Now when Vijay or Phil start something, then its a story because they ACTUALLY have something to lose. Woody Austen is just entertainment for all the writers and fans who feel like Tiger needs a foe.
BTW- he & Rory went to the same school-they both say the 'beat' Tiger in events he actually won.
You are apparently another guy who doesn't understand that in stroke play competition, the only thing the pros play against is the course.
As for Woody Austin, he has won on the PGA tour, and he did shoot a nifty 67 in Sunday's final to finish second. Not exactly chopped liver.
Woods has a 25% chance of winning; the rest of the field of, say, 144, share the other 75%.
By my calculation, that is 0.52% chance.
Compare that to Woods' winning percentage, Woods is about 48 times more likely than any given individual in the field in winning.
I'll assume that your last post was meant as a joke.
If it wasn't, my advice to you is don't quit your day job and try to become a professor of mathematics.
Your method of calculation is erroneous and thus your conclusion is a fallacy. But I think you knew that already. Tiger is good, in fact, he's great. However, if he had such a probability of winning going for him, he'd have only lost one or two times in his career.
Thanks for the chuckle, though. We can all use a little humor.
Obviously basic math is not your forte. Your response just proved that.
No need to provide any retort.
The intimidation factor is something you have to learn to cope with early on. In other words, it's not as if you never experience intimidation until you encounter a giant like Woods. In fact, you probably experience it almost immediately.
Perhaps you play your first match against a kid who has been playing for a while and radiates confidence, perhaps it's your first time playing a ranked player in a regional tournament, or perhaps it's that crackerjack who has dominated your section.
My point is that just like you have to overcome technical obstacles and perhaps physical ones in your evolution as a player, you must overcome psychological ones as well. And first and foremost you may have to develop the ability to play your game regardless of how imposing your opponent may seem; after all, it's virtually impossible to achieve success without being able to do so.
Thus, there is NO ONE on the professional tour who hasn't tackled the problem of intimidation, and it's hard to imagine ascending to that level if you haven't conquered it. Put succinctly, if they hadn't learned to view opponents as just people, with two arms, two legs, a beating heart, loves, hopes, dreams, fears and frailties like everyone else -- and this is what a successful competitor learns on his journey -- they wouldn't be in a position to play Woods in the first place.
This isn't to say that the image and reputation of Woods aren't sufficient to push buttons and conjure up old demons in certain players, for he certainly is singular in our time; it is simply to say that it's silly to think that there aren't a heck of a lot of guys out there who are just going to play their games regardless. I know I would.
In conclusion, many of you can't grasp this because you're laymen; you view a giant such as Woods -- someone you place on a pedestal largely because he's a celebrity and you've never met him -- and you just can't for the life of you imagine how anyone might not be shaking in his boots when locking horns with him. As I said, though, there's a different mentality in existence, one that is bred through years of battlefield experience. Seasoned competitors learn to transcend what you view as insurmountable.
I'll give you one anyway.
According to your fallacious calculation, every other golfer in an event in which Tiger Woods is a participant has about one-half of one percent chance of winning the tournament, while Tiger himself has about a 25% chance of winning.
That would mean that a guy like Vijay Singh would be on an equal footing to win as would a player who is in his first PGA event after being an amateur.
The oddsmakers don't see it that way. If they did, every golfer but Tiger would be 200 to 1 to win the tournament. The odds on the various players never add up to 100. Quite to the contrary, they would add up to thousands.
As an example, the odds quoted by Pinnacle Sports on the Wyndham range from Lucas Glover at 18 to 1 to Alex Cejka at 80 to 1 with 28 other golfers rated in between. The other 120+ golfersare part of the "field" which has odds of 1.5 to 1.
Those lines are created by a handicapper who takes into account such things as number of wins and high finishes and the players' present form.
If Woods and some of the other top golfers were in the field, Tiger would most probably be at 2.5 to 1, Vijay and Ernie at 12 to 1, Phil at 15 to 1, and Woody at about 30 to 1. The rest of the golfers would also add a few digits to their odds and the field would be at 2.5 to 1 also
The only players who would be at 200 to 1 or more would be those who haven't made a cut in ten tries and those below 200 on the money list.
Even though you didn't think you need any math education, I hope you at least attempt to digest the foregoing information.
Perhaps you would be better served to consult with punter Anthony Urquhart on the subject.
Alex USMC 1967-71
In a stroke play competition you ARE playing agianst the course, essentially playing against your own ability to handle pressure. You cant tell me that playing with the worlds number one (though you KNOW he's beatable) in the final group doesnt bring in any added pressure.
If thats your position then I'd just like to disagree. It's not that everyone is quaking in their boots, but to deny its an extra pressure that can affect how tight you are seems unlikely. Someone like Boo or Woody may not feel it as much, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Im not denying Austen's previous PGA success, but is he there most of the time contending for majors, always on the big stage? NO. Thats what I meant by he really has nothing to lose with his posturing.
He's also not some up & coming player that the press will seize on if he doesnt follow through, he's more a great story for them.
Another bit of proof that the Woods intimidation factor is Tiger's so-so record in both the Ryder and President's cups
Match play is the best place to put the intimidation fallacy to the test
If the fear of Tiger was as pervasive as some seem to think, head to head competions such as the cups and the match play would certainly mean that a menacing Tiger would NEVER lose a match. And yet he loses almost as many as he wins in these formats.
And, of course, there is the spector of Nick O'Hern on the myth of Tiger intimidation. No one can explain that happening, nor should they even try.
Woods is great, he's a superstar, the best by far for more than ten years.
What he is NOT is invincible. He has been beaten too many times to be considered as such.
Besides, some fellows just place things in better perspective. As Austin said (I'll paraphrase), what's to be intimidated about? It's not like we're going to get into a fight.
It's golf, folks, not life or death. Call me crazy, but I think there are at least a few individuals on the scene who can engage in frivolous pursuits and not behave as if it's the Roman Arena.
You are right about your rationalization on this. I was only lumping the other golfers together in the context of Woods against the rest of the field as one entity.
However, I am concerned that your counter-explanation uses odds maker's rationalization rather than straight up mathematics. That makes me worry about the future of American where it appears that people learn their math through sports wagering.
I do thank you for taking the time for a thoughtful and very logical and civil response.
And for Judge Smail, you are earning more and more of my respect. On the topics of Wie of ole, I thought you were more like Booger. But now it appears that you are making more sense and have better perspectives than most who chose to post their opinions. Cheers to that.
It's not as if they are across from each other in a boxing ring or as if Austin is facing a 90 mph fast ball. He has to do the same the same thing no matter who is in front of him on the leaderboard.
It would seem to me that a lay person would think more of the intimidation factor than someone with pro experience.
More than anything I don't think the word intimidated is accurate. Nervous that you have to overcome a 5 shot lead by Tiger... that makes sense. But not intimidated.
You might be surprised to know that bookies are astute and, for the most part, correct in their calculations. It is in the nature of their business that too be successful they must be accurate.
Of course, a bettor will never get a bet on anything which pays the true odds. All bets are subject to a commission, known variously as the "edge", the "vigorish", or the "juice".
Say that Woods has won 60 out of 240 events entered, the true odds on Tiger winning a tournament are 1 in 4 or 3 to 1 against him winning. But you'll only receive about 2.5 or 2.75 to 1 when betting on Woods. In fact, some betting sites had Tiger at a paltry 2.05 to 1 in both the British Open and the recent PGA, probably because he was the defending champion in both events..
And to Tiger's credit, I doubt if he ever has considered such a myth as an intimidation factor to be anything but just that, a myth.
It is almost entirely the creation of Nantz, Faldo, Feherty, etc. At times on the telecasts they prattle on and on about this myth ad nauseum. And guys like Chris give credence to it by blogs like this.
In a similar vein, these same guys often grow orgasmic over a Woods shot which wouldn't merit a mention if done by any other golfer.
Last weekend, Tiger made a good but less than spectacular shot from the rough to about twelve feet from the flag. Now, at least four other players had made similar strokes immediately prior to Woods' shot without so much as a yawn from the announcers. But Tiger's approach sent them into paeans of praise. One even said that there wasn't another golfer in the field that could have pulled off that shot.
At times, at MOST times, the endless fawning and sycophancy surrounding Tiger gets to be a bit much.
What do you think?
Thank you for the kind words.
Yes, I can explain it.
On average,Woods completes the 18 holes in three fewer strokes than his playing partner.
He does this because he is a seasoned pro, a superstar, and he likes the challenge.
He sinks a few more birdie and par saving putts than his playing partner. He makes a few sand saves while his partner doesn't.
In short, he does this because he is ALWAYS a superior golfer by virtue of his record when compared to any partner.
On the other hand, Tiger's playing partners are also seasoned pros for the most part.
They've seen all sorts of challening situations. They've been through the mill, and I can guarantee you that intimidation hasn't one damned thing to do with it.
You've just taken the bait of Woods sycophants like McCord, Faldo, Feherty, Nance, and Kostis. These brownnosers do little other than sing Woods' praises no matter who is leading an event in which he is playing, even when he doesn't win, which is about 75% of the time.
Lately, they even prattle on endlessly about Tiger when he isn't even in the tournament.
The point is that Faldo, for example, knows more about golf than you or I. If he's saying that there is an intimidation factor then I would think that there might well be. I wouldn't say Woods is the only person to have had it.
Just because you're a seasoned pro does not mean you don't feel pressure, and I think Woods exerts this pressure on the people that play with him. The stats seem to bore this out.
If what you say is true, that Woods intimidates other pro golfers by his mere presence, then how do you account for the fact that in match play such as the Ryder and President's Cups and the Accenture match play, his record is just slightly better than .500?
In head-to-head matches, one against one, wouldn't the intimidation factor, if there actually is one, become more apparent than ever?
How is ir that Tiger has ever lost in a match play event?
As for the fawning Faldo and all the rest, there is an old axiom among veteran horse players.
Never ask a jockey who he likes in the net race. In fact, don't ask a jockey about anything to do with thoroughbred racing. It will invariably be the wrong information that one gets. The same with Faldo. Feherty, Miller, McCord, et al.
Comments are closed for this post.