We hold the USGA in highest regard as a key part of the game of golf,"
Finchem said. "We don't attempt to denigrate that position in any way
whatsoever. It's just on this issue, we think if they were to move
forward they would be making a mistake.
Zomp said:You could do 36 the last day, semis and finals. Yeah its only 4 golfers.
Its probably not made for TV, but Match Play has been in golf for a long time and I'd like to see it in more than one tournament and ryder cups.
cshea said:Poulter has spent the morning bitching and moaning about having to play the consolation match. He is so insufferable. I can't tell if he is joking or not, but saying Day may pull out of the Honda because he's too tired from the last 18 they had to play.
FL4WL3SS said:I like Poulter. The guy brings a flare to golf and is honest and entertaining. I don't like my golfers fake and boring like Mickelson.
johnmd20 said:I actually like Poulter's honesty on Twitter. Yeah, he can be a douche more often than not but at least he's putting himself out there and voicing some opinions. I like that better than the Tiger Woods robot act or Phil Mickelson's fake good guy act. Poulter is a beeeyatch, though. He does whine a lot.
In his presser before the WGC last week, he was asked about tennis and said that he actually plays less since he started dating Maria...FL4WL3SS said:McIlroy's swing is a mess right now. He's got this weird loopy thing going on and is getting stuck inside and the ball is going left and right. He'll figure it out, but he needs to get his shit together and stop playing tennis.
Average Reds said:That sounds like he injured something. You just don't walk off the course in the middle of a round just because you are playing shitty.
"There's not really say much I can say, guys," he said to three reporters in the parking lot before driving away. "I'm not in a good place mentally, you know?"
Asked if anything was wrong physically, McIlroy answered, "No." Asked about his swing getting stuck, he said, "Yeah, I really don't know what's going on."
I wishTigerRory was playing better and more involved with the top of the leader board, but his drama is getting ridiculous. He quits like John Daly now. Not where you want to be.
I had the same thought...cshea said:Tiger would've gotten absolutely killed if he picked up his ball and WD due to nothing more than a shitty round.
steveluck7 said:I had the same thought...
Didn't he abruptly withdraw fairly recently during a poor round and get a ton of heat?
edit: it was the cadillac @ Doral last year with his achilles.
Yeah, I just checked last years PGA thread...WayBackVazquez said:Yes, last March. That's what my quote above refers to. Some people here accused him of faking an injury and compared him to John Daly.
How's Villegas doing?WayBackVazquez said:FL4WLESS: Mouth-breathing Douchebag.
FL4WL3SS said:WBV: Perfect Human Being and Purveyor of all that is good
Can the two of you knock it the fuck off? It's tiring as shit.WayBackVazquez said:FL4WLESS: Mouth-breathing Douchebag.
The Four Peters said:And bringing up stuff from over a year ago is pretty cool too.
I can't believe people aren't calling him out more for quitting. This is crazy to me. If Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett or even Gronk walked off the field with a "minor" injury, people would go crazy. Tiger does it and it's like, "Dude, he's gotta protect himself." Which is BS. Protect himself from what? Humiliating himself? All golfers, like all athletes, get dinged up. You have to play through that.
The Four Peters said:Then talk about Rory. Everyone is talking about Rory, it's a more than worthy discussion point. You can even do it in the context of the reaction to Tiger pulling out last year. But stop playing "gotcha" and bringing up old arguments for the 50th time by taking people's old quotes and editing them in a clear attempt to antagonize. Stop calling people douchebags. Stop trying to gloat and always make sure everyone knows exactly the times when you're right, even if most of us ignore the many times you are wrong since trying to have a normal conversation with you can be futile.
We're all golf fans, or we wouldn't be in here. Discussing golf should be fun, not a chore of a debate all the time.
To the bolded, how about you do that, just once? Editing an old johnmd20 post isn't exactly advancing a healthy debate around Tiger's place in the sport of golf and its surrounding cultural context. I've yet to see you once discuss the things you just laid out here, to me it seems you're more focused on making sure you call out everyone who was mean to Tiger in the past. Hell, I think that'd be a fascinating discussion point with how it gets manifested in people's criticism of Tiger. Cshea right before you said that Tiger would have gotten blasted if he did what Rory did (and I agree with him). Unfortunately, I also think you're pretty incapable of leading this discussion/debate with antogonizing everyone else who tries to participate, but I would love to be proven wrong and would admit if and when I am.WayBackVazquez said:Thanks for your direction, but one of the things I like to talk about is how the hatred of Tiger Woods by some--based on many things, ranging from the fact that he *gasp* had extramarital affairs, to the fact that he doesn't give warm and cuddly interviews, or even to his racial outsider status in a still very-white sport--causes them to make wild statements, accusations, analyses and predictions, that to my eyes don't comport with reality, and don't apply to other athletes. I like debate, as well as golf, sorry. I want to do both sometimes. You're welcome to block me.
As for calling people douchebags, point me to another instance where I've done it, if you like. When your BFF comes in and responds to a post having nothing to do with him with nothing but a sarcastic ad hominem, I think an accurate ad hominem response is fairly appropriate.
The Four Peters said:And I told both of you to knock it off earlier, not just you. I've ignored a shit ton of your sarcastic comments over the past week or two directed my way (including another snarky BFF reference above), it's possible for you to do the same just once. And it wasn't an ad-hominem either. It was sarcastic, and if you're really sensitive I guess you could construe it as an "attack", but it was making a very specific point. Your response wasn't an ad-hominem either, but that's also beside the point.
My point exactly. I'm glad you decided to address the constructive part of my post.WayBackVazquez said:Oh, okay. I'm the snarky one, but you're going to attempt to correct me about what ad hominem means while acknowledging that it's beside the point? Do you derive your superior knowledge about this vocabulary word from your title as spelling bee champ or your position as the coach of the debate team?
And what were the shit ton of sarcastic comments directed your way? How about pointing me to even a quarter ton of them?