clifford_thornton Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Each time this thread pops up I think: "again!?" Don't the US have more important issues to think of than this chap? No, not really. I mean, health care & the economy? Who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Most won't notice, but all this crap about celebrities and other totally unimportant stuff *is* politics, in the way that it is meant to (and succeeds in, mostly) keep people from bothering about the important stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Or, its far more likely that a lot of people are gossips, and this is the way gossip is delivered - with expert opinion ladled on top - in the modern world. Need I mention that English isn't the language with a single word that means "pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Each time this thread pops up I think: "again!?" Don't the US have more important issues to think of than this chap? Well, other than spending time trying to figure out the best way to get oop Mosaic sets to you so that you can sleep comfortably at night, what else is there to ponder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) but golf is oh so elitist clean and everyone has a perfect white shirt, of course of course... I don't recall seeing Jesper Parnevik ever wear a white shirt? You sure you aren't thinking about Polo? ...and it's not elitist -- even though you're Swiss and enjoy the sound of inferior sounding product produced by Spanish labels --as opposed to Japanese -- I'd still allow you access to my Club. Well, depends what make of car you're currently driving. One of those late model Citroëns with a duck sticker on the back....and you can forget about it! Edited March 2, 2010 by Son-of-a-Weizen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Ha, you're all too generous! I don't drive, so I have to come on the back of a horse or some such... or hope no one will slit my throat on the greyhound Anyway, I'll bring some Jever pils to make sure you'll allow me in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man with the Golden Arm Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Clinton offers Tiger his support! I do hope someone had the tap on that call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 I don't drive, so I have to come on the back of a horse or some such... or hope no one will slit my throat on the greyhound Anyway, I'll bring some Jever pils to make sure you'll allow me in! The only way that might happen is if Bertrand finds out that you've unearthed some unreleased Morgan or Shorter material in the Library of Congress and boarded the bus with it stashed in your Dokumententasche! Jever's a fine start -- definitely entitles you to as many mulligans on the front nine as I saw Clinton take when he was there! 6 anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Clinton offers Tiger his support! I do hope someone had the tap on that call. I'm not sure "tap" is the right word for a call involving those two... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Clinton offers Tiger his support! I do hope someone had the tap on that call. Makes me wish Phil Hartman was alive too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swinging Swede Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Need I mention that English isn't the language with a single word that means "pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others"? According to Merriam-Webster, English has this word: Main Entry: scha·den·freu·de Pronunciation: \ˈshä-dən-ˌfrȯi-də\ Function: noun Usage: often capitalized Etymology: German, from Schaden damage + Freude joy Date: 1895 : enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others -_- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) To all you Tiger haters: Adultery, as much disrespect as it shows to his wife, is NOT illegal. Golf is a sport, not a wedding vow. The damage Tiger has done to his marriage is his own affair and none of our damn business. The man is the best golfer in the history of the game. And if there is any truth to tell, you can research professional sports clear back to Ty Cobbs and find drug use, infidelity, weapons possession, violent acts, spousal abuse etcetera ad nauseum. These are athletes. Not the second in line to the Pope. Seems to me that the old Biblical edict applies here: Ye without sin, cast the first stone. Leave the man alone, fer crissakes already. Edited March 21, 2010 by GoodSpeak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted March 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 The man is the best golfer in the history of the game. I'd give my left nut to have Tiger and Jack go toe to toe, both their primes, using today's equipment. That's the only way the "who's best" argument can ever be resolved. I'd even throw Hogan or Bobby Jones into that mix. If you've ever seen either of their swings, you know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 The man is the best golfer in the history of the game. I'd give my left nut to have Tiger and Jack go toe to toe, both their primes, using today's equipment. That's the only way the "who's best" argument can ever be resolved. I'd even throw Hogan or Bobby Jones into that mix. If you've ever seen either of their swings, you know why. Oh, most definitely throw in Ben Hogan! Can't forget him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man with the Golden Arm Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 The man is the best golfer in the history of the game. I'd give my left nut to have Tiger and Jack go toe to toe, both their primes, using today's equipment. That's the only way the "who's best" argument can ever be resolved. I'd even throw Hogan or Bobby Jones into that mix. If you've ever seen either of their swings, you know why. I don't know about the left one as that might produce too much of a hip turn on the backswing and end up leaking things out to the right. But I agree and love to see it done with old persimmons and steel. I'll take Jack in my bracket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 I'd even throw Hogan or Bobby Jones into that mix. If you've ever seen either of their swings, you know why. I'd have to add in my favorite caddie/golfer.....Francis Ouimet, winner of the 1913 US Open at age 20. He'd clobber 'em all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 To all you Tiger haters: Adultery, as much disrespect as it shows to his wife, is NOT illegal. Golf is a sport, not a wedding vow. The damage Tiger has done to his marriage is his own affair and none of our damn business. The man is the best golfer in the history of the game. And if there is any truth to tell, you can research professional sports clear back to Ty Cobbs and find drug use, infidelity, weapons possession, violent acts, spousal abuse etcetera ad nauseum. These are athletes. Not the second in line to the Pope. Seems to me that the old Biblical edict applies here: Ye without sin, cast the first stone. Leave the man alone, fer crissakes already. The problem with your argument is that Woods has -- for a financial return far greater I believe than anything he has earned from playing golf per se -- marketed himself as an all-round good guy role model. That's not to say that he hasn't done some remarkable things when it comes to guts and will as well as skill -- e.g. his almost one-legged win over Rocco Mediate in the U.S. Open -- but such genuine human-athletic feats essentially flow into and further Wood's carefully marketed image. No, he's not second in line to the Pope, but he's certainly a key part in the machinery that was designed to foster the belief (so lucrative to him and to the corporations to which he was linked) that he was something of a paragon as a person as well as an athlete. In effect, Tiger Woods has been in part an actor playing the role of Tiger Woods, and part of his job there was to make sure that we could not see the difference. Now we can, and there's ... static. How much there should be, I don't know because I myself don't much care, but "leave the man alone" hardly seems fitting. Did the assiduous marketing of Woods over all these years leave us alone? As for Ty Cobb, the actual man was not too far removed from the image of Cobb the surly S.O.B. that prevailed at the time. A better analogy might be another great golfer Bobby Jones, who always has been presented to the public as something of a paragon. If Jones instead were (you fill in the blank), might that not be of some significance? P.S. As for the Pope, recent news stories, if true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man with the Golden Arm Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 I'd even throw Hogan or Bobby Jones into that mix. If you've ever seen either of their swings, you know why. I'd have to add in my favorite caddie/golfer.....Francis Ouimet, winner of the 1913 US Open at age 20. He'd clobber 'em all. or how this Montague the Magnificent! now if I had to round out a foursome I'd go Chi Chi, Trevino, Boros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 To all you Tiger haters: Adultery, as much disrespect as it shows to his wife, is NOT illegal. Golf is a sport, not a wedding vow. The damage Tiger has done to his marriage is his own affair and none of our damn business. The man is the best golfer in the history of the game. And if there is any truth to tell, you can research professional sports clear back to Ty Cobbs and find drug use, infidelity, weapons possession, violent acts, spousal abuse etcetera ad nauseum. These are athletes. Not the second in line to the Pope. Seems to me that the old Biblical edict applies here: Ye without sin, cast the first stone. Leave the man alone, fer crissakes already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) Whatever, Jazzmoose. Taking a page out of Dan Gould's playbook, eh? A man's marital affairs are personal and private. You want to think different....have a blast. How that applies to Professional Golf is beyond me. Edited March 22, 2010 by GoodSpeak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 And OMG! There are loads of "Leave Tiger Alone" parodies on youtube. I doubt anything approaches the original Britney crybaby, but damn! Pretty good South Park last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) To all you Tiger haters: Adultery, as much disrespect as it shows to his wife, is NOT illegal. Golf is a sport, not a wedding vow. The damage Tiger has done to his marriage is his own affair and none of our damn business. The man is the best golfer in the history of the game. And if there is any truth to tell, you can research professional sports clear back to Ty Cobbs and find drug use, infidelity, weapons possession, violent acts, spousal abuse etcetera ad nauseum. These are athletes. Not the second in line to the Pope. Seems to me that the old Biblical edict applies here: Ye without sin, cast the first stone. Leave the man alone, fer crissakes already. The problem with your argument is that Woods has -- for a financial return far greater I believe than anything he has earned from playing golf per se -- marketed himself as an all-round good guy role model. That's not to say that he hasn't done some remarkable things when it comes to guts and will as well as skill -- e.g. his almost one-legged win over Rocco Mediate in the U.S. Open -- but such genuine human-athletic feats essentially flow into and further Wood's carefully marketed image. No, he's not second in line to the Pope, but he's certainly a key part in the machinery that was designed to foster the belief (so lucrative to him and to the corporations to which he was linked) that he was something of a paragon as a person as well as an athlete. In effect, Tiger Woods has been in part an actor playing the role of Tiger Woods, and part of his job there was to make sure that we could not see the difference. Now we can, and there's ... static. How much there should be, I don't know because I myself don't much care, but "leave the man alone" hardly seems fitting. Did the assiduous marketing of Woods over all these years leave us alone? As for Ty Cobb, the actual man was not too far removed from the image of Cobb the surly S.O.B. that prevailed at the time. A better analogy might be another great golfer Bobby Jones, who always has been presented to the public as something of a paragon. If Jones instead were (you fill in the blank), might that not be of some significance? P.S. As for the Pope, recent news stories, if true... With all due respect, I fail to see the justification for prying into a man's personal affairs because of a marketing image and on any level. So he isn't squeaky clean. He's not perfect. Now what? Do we allow ourselves to believe he should be badgered for all time memorial because of what his sponsors foisted upon us via the media? Seriously, who of us know what kind of a man Tiger Woods really is anyway? Do we base it upon the cynical say-so of a tabloid kiss-and-tell media? Babe Ruth was a womanizer and did little to disguise that fact. Yet we idolize that cigar smoking drunken lout over Barry Bonds because of a drug he is alleged to have taken. It just seems to me that we place far too much significance upon the private and personal foibles of Tiger Woods all the while dismissing the same if not worse of other athletes....and with selective reasoning. I have a problem with that, Larry. Edited March 23, 2010 by GoodSpeak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 [ With all due respect, I fail to see the justification for prying into a man's personal affairs because of a marketing image and on any level. So he isn't squeaky clean. He's not perfect. Now what? Do we allow ourselves to believe he should be badgered for all time memorial because of what his sponsors foisted upon us via the media? Seriously, who of us know what kind of a man Tiger Woods really is anyway? Do we base it upon the cynical say-so of a tabloid kiss-and-tell media? Babe Ruth was a womanizer and did little to disguise that fact. Yet we idolize that cigar smoking drunken lout over Barry Bonds because of a drug he is alleged to have taken. It just seems to me that we place far too much significance upon the private and personal foibles of Tiger Woods all the while dismissing the same if not worse of other athletes....and with selective reasoning. I have a problem with that, Larry. Did I say that he should be "badgered for time immemorial"? No -- I said that now "we can see [some dramatic difference between one side of the actual Tiger Woods and the widely marketed image of Woods as a human paragon as well as a great athlete], and there's ... static. How much there should be, I don't know because I myself don't much care, but 'leave the man alone' hardly seems fitting." As for "what his sponsors foisted upon us," this was foisted upon Woods, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 BTW, since when is sex an "addiction"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts