Whole front page The Villages Daily Sun "Tiger invades Liverpool"
 

Can I be the only person in The Villages who was upset about this? Obviously a very bad news day!

There were over 100 professional golfers starting out in The Open. These are the best golfers in the world. Tiger Woods has played one tournament this year and he is a threat!

I guess not only in the National media do they suck up to him but also here at the Daily Sun. Makes me want to cancel my subscription.

Seriously, Tiger was a force for many years and that is fine but to snub some of the greatest young golfers in the world for this space is ridiculous

It is because Tiger is so very popular and loved by so many. Admittedly, I enjoy a match with him in it more than when he is not. Win or loose.

Canceling a subscription is like "never going back to a restaurant".

and sometimes that happens!

I agree fully with the original post. It is high time for the media and sportscasters to face the reality of what he has done/not done in the past couple of years. He gets entirely too much coverage based on what he used to do or did.

I think it is entirely unfair to the golfers who are rising up to the current challenge and playing much better golf than Woods.

The news casters have this infatuation with needing to be there and singing the praises JUST IN CASE he should win one.

In my opinion the tournaments without him are much better covered focusing on the players at hand. And even then some of the moderators that also live in the past continue to compare with Tiger did this or that or he would have.

It is time for some to fast forward.

Thank you Billethkid! Well said

The fact is that when Tiger plays, there is a lot more interest in the tournament. Television viewership skyrockets and more tickets are sold. He is the most well know athlete in the world today.

Of course the media is going to cover him more. More people are interested in him. It's been proven that when Tiger plays, people who don't normally watch golf tune in. People are interested in what he's doing more so than any other athlete.

Why would the media not want to cover what people are interested in?

Absolutely. Those of us that respect the talent of Tiger are by far the majority; hence, the increased viewing. Most pro golfers are boring compared to El Tigray.

:crap2:

I don't deny he's talented, but for me that doesn't equate to respect.

Couldn't disagree more.

Well, I am happy the Media wholeheartedly agrees with me.

You really think that media coverage automatically equates to respect?!?

:BigApplause: Couldn't agree with you more!

"It is better to have won and lost, than never won at all." (My twist). That stated: Tiger has had his day and the focus should be exclusively on the current and up and coming players. If Tiger becomes a contender than give him his due. Save the headlines for "What's happening now".

Why not have a "Tiger" channel when he is on TV. Wait, they already do! I don't mind covering him intently when he is in the mix but when the leaders get very little coverage and Tiger gets most of it, even though he is 12 shots out of the lead, that irks me. I don' dispute his talents and accomplishments, but players have done what they needed to to compete and beat Tiger, so when they are in or near the lead they deserve the majority of coverage.

Interesting post!

I have to say that I reacted with some anger to TVDS Saturday's sport section headline, "It's his to lose" with a pic of McIIroy. That I thought was unfair.

Why would you be angry about a paper making a simple factual statement. Rory McIlroy has a six stroke lead going into the final round. Unless he blows up, the tournament is his to win.

With three reachable par five, an average round for him should be 69-70. If he shoots 69, one of the few people that are within six shots would have to shoot 62 to win. Since that is incredibly unlikely, it's pretty much up to McIlroy to have an average or better round to win the tournament. I'd say that it's pretty much his to win or lose.

I think that the anticipation of Tiger coming back and being a dominating force once again is a story of interest to many. Obviously, the fact that he only needs four more majors to catch Jack and a few more victories to catch Sam Snead are what makes him a huge story every time he tees it up.

In every tournament in which Tiger plays, "What happening now" is that Tiger has a chance to get one more victory to having the all time record in either victories or majors.

It's a lot like when Roger Maris got to 58 home runs or Hank Aaron got to 700. Even though their teams may have been out of the hunt, they were the major sports story.

Tiger is the major story because of the possibility of history being made every time he plays.

Good account of why some are infatuated (my term) with Woods.
However, he is no more likely to win one than anybody else on the tour at any given competition.

And when he is down on page two of the leaderboards with no hope of winning the coverage should dissipate accordingly.....which it never does (for some).

How much more exciting can the British Open be right now than it is?

I don't disagree with that except that the story is whether or not he returns to being Tiger. If he does, then he has a better chance than most to win any tournament that he enters.

And yes, the British Open is very exciting right now. But, it would be infinitely more exciting if Tiger had a chance to win his fifteenth major.

Maybe Rory will go on to surpass Tiger and jack and all the rest. While that's certainly a possibility, he's not close enough for us to believe that we're watching history being made every time he plays. When Tiger plays, we know that there is a very good chance that we are.

Tiger is the only one in the world right now with a chance of becoming the greatest golfer in history. of course there is a chance that one of the other great players out there could surpass him, but right now, he is the one chasing that mantle. No one else is close. That's why there is so much coverage and that is why there is so much interest every time he plays.

I would much rather see Tiger in the hunt than anyone else. Not because I like him as a person but because I have a chance of seeing history being made.

I don't like him.

he's on the 13th hole and he's playing awful. Sergio is having a decent round but if he wins, the story will be, and should be about Rory's collapse. He shot 66-66-68 and he's currently even on today's round. That's five shots worse than the average of his first three round.

He's playing horribly and he knows it and everyone else can see it. If Rory does not win this tournament, he will have lost it rather than anyone winning it.

For those without TV, radio or the Internet..............he did win.

Well, if they don't have the internet, your post is not going to help them.

But, yes he did win, by the skin of his teeth. He had such a huge lead that even a poor round didn't prevent him from winning.

I like Rory. I think that he has a great future in front of him and I hope that he keeps on winning. Golf is so much more exciting when there are a few great players that dominate. Just before Tiger came on the scene we had several years of a different mediocre player winning each week. Interest in golf had gone south.

It's good to know that if Tiger never makes a comeback, that Rory, Bubba, Ricky Fowler, Keegan Bradley, Martin Kaymer, and a few other young guns will keep the interest in golf as a spectator sport alive.

How about this for a headline:

McIIroy in Line to Match Woods and Nicklaus with Three Majors by Age 25!

..a bit more positive to wake up to Sunday morning!

I watch much more golf when Tiger plays. It was no different when Jack Nicklaus or Arnold Palmer played. They were all and continue to be great for the game of golf. Sooner or later one of the younger golfers will step up to their level but they are not there yet. So Tiger right now is the best ambassador to the game that is currently playing, and will join the ranks of the other great ambassadors when he retires.

Of course their impact on the record books is undeniable, but once you leave the realm of on-course accomplishments, Tiger pales in comparison to Jack and Arnie.

The word ambassador implies a good person to me. I cannot think of Tiger as an ambassador.

Headlines are not designed to report or inform, but yet to sell papers by evoking an interest. I suppose the editor must have thought that headline presented the best marketing strategy of the day.

From experience I am of the opinion not as much "thinking" goes into the headline as does the editer/publisher/owner beliefs/likes/agenda.

Separately on the subject of ambassadors for golf...that in my opinion has not to do with just golf accomplishment but the man as an individual and his values and standing in the publics eye. Names like Palmer/Nicholas easily come to mind. Woods, again in my opinion, will never be of that stature regardless the accomplishment.

My opening is that the game of golf is bigger than anyone player.
I believe that the media ought to focus on all the unbelievable shots made by a player. I also believe it is respectful for the media to give the leader(s) their day in the sun. Rory, Ricky and Sergio played their hearts out and made this a very watchful event.

As to the respect thing, one may admire athletic skills of a player but not necessarily have respect for a player. Arnie and Jack both earned both.

The golf industry like any other is only interested in profits but their focus on tiger in my view is going to turn a lot of people off because it is a fairness issue and because such attention is presently without merit

As an aside some of you may not have heard that Rory's father made a bet 10 years ago that his son would win the Open within 10 years. He collected $177,000 for Ladbrokers

Actually, he's only one of three players to have won three OR MORE majors by age 25. Tiger had won five, a masters, a US Open, one British Open and two PGA Championships by age 25.

Nicklaus had won four by that age. Two Masters, one US Open and one PGA Championship.

The only other player to have won three by age 25 is Raymond Floyd.

Tiger had also won 24 total US PGA Tour events by that age compared to seven by Rory.

I like Rory a lot, but there's no comparison to Tiger or Jack. He doesn't consistently dominate every week like Tiger and Jack did. He is however the youngest person ever to get to three majors. And he is certainly a bright light on the PGA tour.

Nicklaus had one three by age 23, Woods had three by 24....McIlroy is 25. That makes him the third youngest, not the youngest. Raymond Floyd was 40 when he won his third major. Didn't win his first one until he was 26.

I saw Raymond Floyd win his first tournament in person, he was 20 years old and I was 13. I started playing golf in 1962 and I grew up in St. Petersburg. I went to the 1963 St. Petersburg Open and Ray Floyd was the winner. The entire purse was $25,000 and first prize was $2,500. I had Tommy Bolt golf clubs, so I followed Tommy Bolt and Dave Marr, who was a very quiet fellow and never smiled, just the opposite of Tommy. 1964 was the last year of the St. Petersburg Open, it was replaced on the tour by the Jacksonville Open.

Of course you're right. My mistake. I think that the stat that I was thinking of was that Woods, Nicklaus and Floyd are the only ones ever to win two majors wire to wire. I think that Rory is the youngest is to do that.