Tiger Woods

Rocco has had a night to think about everything and what is at stake, whereas yesterday he was acting like an old geezer having the time of his life who couldn't believe he was challenging for the US Open. Got a feeling he'll go to water today......

Steve wrote:I was gutted for Westwood.

It was quite galling the way the Yank commentators (and the crowd for that matter) treated Westwood like a bit of an afterthought. It was "Tiger this, Rocco that" and then "Oh yeah, and Westwood is still in this".

He handled himself with a degree of style.

Paul Keating wrote:In terms of being the greatest in their chosen sport, he and Schumacher are probably the only two in the past 15 years who have serious claims to being the best ever in their sport. I hope Tiger can win this major.

Federer or Ian Thorpe are not quite the greatest of all time.

Last 15 years? Jordan and Gretzky were still very much active in 1993.

Stephen Hendry also

Wow,

Rocco birdied 13th, 14th and 15th and took a one shot lead with only two to go. Can he hold his nerve?

Both had 17th hole on par.

Just like yesterday! Tiger must need a birdie if Rocco plays par! What a battle!

And he did it again! We are on sudden death now.

It's all over for Rocco - badly fumbled at suddendeth tee shot and never recovered.

The streak continues. Woods never lost a major with a lead after 3 day's play.

Woods. Best golfer ever. Possibly one of the best sportsmen ever.

Well done Rocco though. If he had won it would have been fully deserved.

It's official: Woods on one leg is better than the rest on two!

Rocco's nerves held up excellently. Most other golfers would have wilted against Tiger, even when he only has one leg.

Have to agree with the earlier posts though, the constant "in the hole" shite was doing my head in.

"GEDDNNAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLE!!!!!!!"

You just can't beat vicarious hysteria.

A huge well played to the final two. It was fantastic entertainment.

A btw on Tiger's knee. It had feck all effect on anything. He hit it in the shit all tournament, as he usually does. The overiding key to his sucesses is the best all round short game I've seen.

Basil wrote:It's official: Woods on one leg is better than the rest on two!

Aye. Brett Ogle on FoxSports reckoned Tiger was at best 70% fit. Not bad when you can play at 70% and still win a Major. What a player.

And well done to Rocco for not only holding it together but almost taking it out for the 2nd time in two days.

Is Tiger statistically as good as Bradman opr what? Would love to read an analysis.

From what I have read is that Gof has its strongest field of players ever. The quality is spread all over. So that has got to say someting about Tiger.

furriner wrote:Is Tiger statistically as good as Bradman opr what? Would love to read an analysis.

Tiger would be sh!t if he averaged 99.94.

Just looking at the highlights from the play-off now.

Both Woods and Medtiate are wearing black trousers, red tops and black caps. The AFL would never allow that, they would have forced one of them to play in an all white sailors suit instead....

Tiger has just dug out of a bunker, so deep there was sand half way up his club shaft.

Paul Keating wrote:From what I have read is that Gof has its strongest field of players ever. The quality is spread all over. So that has got to say someting about Tiger.

Not so sure about that. There might be more overall depth but I really don't see that the drive to win is there amongst the top players outside Tiger. In the 70s when prize money wasn't so great, players genuinely needed to win to eat. Now, the top 200 or so players in the world each year would earn close to $1m.

Perhaps that is Tigers greatest acheivement - convincing his opponents that second is good enough.

The global travel and media committments make his task all the more harder.

There is at least a debate about whether Tiger is already better than Nicklaus.

But is there a view that Mickelson or Els (or anybody else who's been #2 recently) at their top are better than Watson or Faldo or Ballasteros were at theirs? Not that I've heard. Woods at #1 is exceptional. Whoever fills spots 2-10 are standard quality 2-10.

yeah but the same can be said about all sport's today.

you can only play what you come up against.

sage Fred...i think the depth now in quality golfers runs deeper than at any previous point in history, which only highlights the quality of tiger's achievements - esp in the majors...if his health holds he has many years left in the game and will set an amazing record in the majors that will dwarf the Bear's considerable achievements

Fred Nerk wrote:There is at least a debate about whether Tiger is already better than Nicklaus.

But is there a view that Mickelson or Els (or anybody else who's been #2 recently) at their top are better than Watson or Faldo or Ballasteros were at theirs? Not that I've heard. Woods at #1 is exceptional. Whoever fills spots 2-10 are standard quality 2-10.

Maybe that's the the real debate to be had. Mickelson, Els, Vijay etc are all fine golfers but I wouldn't put them in the same class as the 3 you mention above (not to mention Palmer and Player).

The week before Norman won the Brit Open in 1993, the world no 3 was Bernhard Langer. Last week it was Adam Scott. Harsh and unfair but still a stark contrast.