Feb 07

Tournament Golf is great without Tiger Woods

It’s the game, Spence, not the players. Yes, Tiger Woods is the best golfer alive, at present, and likely the best we’ll ever see play the game. But that doesn’t mean tournaments are boring when he’s not around. Far from it. In fact, it could be argued that tournaments are better when he’s not there. Because then, there is a chance that any one in the field might win. I don’t know about anyone else but I thought the U.S. Open last year was the most exciting tournament of the year on the PGA Tour. And ole Tiger Woods missed the cut.

And if you don’t happen to be close-minded, you may have watched the Kraft Nabisco Championship and witnessed what was absolutely the best tournament of 2006. And there was no Tiger Woods. In fact, he wasn’t even invited because it’s limited to female golfers. How about that?

« Nissan Open will be great golfing theater - and it doesn’t include Tiger Woods

Ernie Els gets his first comeback test from Tiger Woods »

8 comments

Comment from: Jack [Visitor]

I have to admit , Shanks, sometimes you leave me speechless!!!!! I just love competition and somehow
a tournament without the best player in the world,
just doesn't seem like competition. Do you watch
any other sporting event and hope that the best player
is not playing that day? If so, you are indeed unique.

02/09/07 @ 14:48

Comment from: Shanks [Member]

All I said was that "tournaments are not boring when Tiger Woods is not around". I've been to them in person and watched them on tv with Tiger and without. Guess what? I enjoy them either way. What can I tell you, I love golf. So shoot me.

My first exposure to pro golf was in 1979, I think. I went out to Monday qualifying for the old Kemper tournament at Congressional - back then only the top 60 were exempt. What I came away from that with was that even the guys that sucked - relatively speaking - were great golfers.

All I need to see is a good competition. Is it better when the best are there. Sure. But I think it's still great when they are not.

02/09/07 @ 15:17

Comment from: Billy Dawg [Visitor]

I hear what yer sayin' there, Shanky-boy. I'm from the same DC area too and usually Tiger Woods doesn't play here. But we still have a tournament anyway and it is well attended every year. Tiger ADDS excitement, but he's not the end-all or be-all for us.

02/10/07 @ 12:54

Comment from: Joe Black [Visitor]

"All I said was that tournaments are not boring when Tiger Woods is not around". Shanks, that's not all you said, I think Jack took issue with what else you said, i.e., "Far from it. In fact, it could be argued that tournaments are better when he’s not there. Because then, there is a chance that any one in the field might win".

02/10/07 @ 15:44

Comment from: Jack [Visitor]

Well Dawg, I'm from GU and we would give anything to have
Tiger in the field. It would definately increase attendence
by 20 percent, not to mention TV ratings.

Our tournament is not boring, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone to say we wouldn't love to have
Tiger in the field.

02/10/07 @ 16:19

Comment from: Billy Dawg [Visitor]

Hey Jack, nice job of paraphrasing what I said. Easy to tell you're a college student. You've learned well how to avoid accusations of plagiarism.

02/11/07 @ 09:57

Comment from: Oliver Sudden [Visitor]

Shanks, I wonder if Vickers cancelled the International because he was angry that Tiger doesn't play ? It doesn't ring true he couldn't find a sponser since Finchem says there are four cities that want the date. I've often thought that the sponsers of tournaments like the Honda and many others must be frustrated by their inability to get big name players to show up.

02/11/07 @ 19:37

Comment from: Jack [Visitor]

Sorry about that Dawg, I missed that statement you made about loving to have Tiger in our tournament!!!!

If you think I was paraphrasing your comment, I'll
save a seat for you in english class.

02/13/07 @ 17:58

This post has 2 feedbacks awaiting moderation...

Comment feed for this post