Knee injury lets Tiger Woods do what he loves best: Not golf & it guarantees U.S. Open win
Add commentsThe news that Tiger Woods is likely out from knee surgery until the Memorial, just two weeks before the U.S. Open, is bad for the PGA Tour. But it’s probably good for Tiger.
No great athlete enjoys not actually competing in his sport more than Tiger Woods. Serena Williams was close for a while, but Tiger’s likely passed her.
The greatest golfer in history - and please let’s stop any of this ridiculous talk that Tiger might not blow by Jack Nicklaus anymore just because he finished second at the Masters - has gotten to the point where he likes to actually practice his craft less than Barbara Streisand. Tiger treats every time he plays like it’s the Super Bowl now and it largely works for him.
There’s been some TV talk noting that Tiger has never won the Masters when he’s played less than six events before it (he’s only played five prior the last two years). The theory being that Tiger hasn’t given himself enough tournament time to prep for the Masters. Good hypothesis, but unfortunately for the game it’s probably the complete opposite.
If anything, Tiger might have peaked too early this year. He was unstoppable through the first four tournaments of this season, which will probably make him conclude he should only play thrice before Augusta next year. Forget those 15-16 tournaments a year, we may be approaching the day when Woods plays 11 or 12.
This all makes the forced knee surgery break likely the perfect leadup to the U.S. Open for Tiger. You’ll read plenty of stories telling you that this knee trouble endangers Tiger’s hold on Torrey Pines.
Think again. This all but guarantees he’ll win it. Tiger is twice as strong when he has a chance for a long recharge: Witness the three wins in four tournament run he went on upon return from the prior knee surgery.
Tiger Woods is turning into the Greta Garbo of golf. It’s bad for golf fans, but great for his trophy case. Elin probably doesn’t mind either.
| « Can't help but root for Big Break Kaanapali's Susan Choi | When cancer scare backstory cannot even get Trevor Immelman play, you know he's an unpopular Masters champion » |
Comment feed for this post
Jason Scott Deegan:
The Accidental Golfer:
Katharine Dyson:
Kiel Christianson:
By the way, 'Mike' - the word "golf" is indeed a 'verb' when used as such (to golf, he golfs, they golfed....etc). Sounds like you ascribe to the RonMon school of "boundary stretching" when it comes to the English language! ;)
I have an old wooden canoe.
I'm going to canoe down the Mississippi.
Tomorrow I'm going to golf.
Anyone wanna play some golf?
The English language can be terribly confusing.
Strickly speaking one should play golf and paddle a canoe.
"The car needs to be serviced.
Where are you holidaying this year?
Are you golfing on Sunday?"
All grammatically incorrect in the sense of using nouns as verbs, but in common usage today, and meaning obvious from context.
Blog title not instantly clear - had to translate it into English English.
Oh, and BTW, American English is actually closer to Shakespeare's English than modern British English. Not that that means it is better, but if one is fixated on trying to define "English English" (whatever that is), it would seem to be relevant.
"STRICTLY speaking" was a correction of my own spelling, and a dig at myself.
If you had not been so quick to take offense, you might have realised that I was NOT laying down rules but simply clarifying that "golf" and "canoe" are nouns, but are in common usage as verbs today.
I am aware that some American English words are closer to Shakespeare's English than modern English English; for example the word "gotten". As Scottish English is so different from English English I tend not to use the word "British".
There is no superiority/inferiority implied in any of these terms.
I do stand by my statement, however, that "Not golf & it guarantees US Open win" did not make sense to me initially. It was Mike's comment that golf is not a verb that clarified the meaning for me.
I think the only time I have been prescriptive on these posts is when I told Tim McD that he could not take all those mulligans, but I believe we compromised.
Can we do likewise?
He and the rest of the WG liberal delegation are caught in the terrible quandary that's affecting the entire Democratic party:
"Do we vote for the nut with the boobs, or for the boob with the nuts?"
In my first post I thought I was simply joining in an interesting conversation on the origins and evolution of language - a subject which does indeed fascinate me. However, I realised belatedly that I had typed the word "STRIKLY" instead of "STRICTLY" and my next post was poking fun at my own mistake, not a dig at anyone else, for heaven's sake. Had Kiel realised this, perhaps he would not have biffed me with his morphology and smote me with a conjoined phrase.
My residual resentment, however, is his inference that I was trying to demonstrate some Brit. superiority over Americans. Unlike the latest poster (to Chris), George Loony, (hmmm) I have no such feelings.
My suggestion to Kiel of a compromise might have been that if he could concede (albeit grudgingly) that it was possible he had misinterpreted my posts, then I would promise to doublecheck all my future posts to ensure that I did not come across as the snotty, arrogant, British cow that he is convinced I am, and may have indeed sounded in retrospect.
However, he appears not to be as big a man as I thought he was.
There, that's got that off my chest.
Sorry, BV, fascinating as the preliminaries undoubtedly are, and merry as your quip may have been, I don't do US politics on these posts. Can't you just imagine the backlash if I did?!
Don't be fooled by Kiel's ratiocinations...he's as enamored of you as the REST of us! But, like a teenager, he seems to feel any notice - even that which makes the girl uncomfortable or unhappy - is "good" notice!!! ;)
Awwwww.....it's OK for you to comment on our politics....every other person/group in the world seems to feel they are qualified to do so! *s*
OK - my only political comment - just for you. I would happily exchange Gordon Brown for any one of your 3 candidates.