Skip Bayless: "I miss the Old Tiger Woods"

Young Drachma · 06-20-2005, 02:17 PM

Link

I agree with him. It's difficult to watch him these days, not because he's not brilliant. But instead because it's not the player we used to see. Earl needs to sit him down and have a chat with him or something.

Young Drachma · 06-20-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

His performance on Sunday reflected the horizontal stripes in his shirt. Woods always wears red on Sundays – his power color. But this time he wore alternating red and orange neon stripes. Sometimes, his game was pure power red. Other times, it was Halloween orange, scaring you like the bogeyman.

I thought the same thing about that shirt. I thought "why isn't he wearing red?"

rkmsuf · 06-20-2005, 02:22 PM

I swear people are retarded in this regard.

Tiger played great. Campbell earned it, period.

To expect a guy to win like Tiger did in his "streak" is just absurd. Impossible in this day when everyone followed Woods' lead and approaches the game a little differently now.

He's very much the same player. Everyone else has raised the bar. Give Tiger a break please. He's still the best golfer anyone of us has ever seen. I mean he won the freaking MASTERS this year.

I really can't stand the false scrutiny. It's just media talking to media to have something to talk about.

QuikSand · 06-20-2005, 02:23 PM

I don't have any particular opinion about Tiger or golf or apparel in general... but if Skip Bayless said something, I think he's an idiot.

rkmsuf · 06-20-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't have any particular opinion about Tiger or golf or apparel in general... but if Skip Bayless said something, I think he's an idiot.

He is just saying stuff here to get the type of response I made. He's a genius that way I guess. Say stupid stuff and get people worked up.

That's in the columnist playbook so I guess I'm not surprised.

MalcPow · 06-20-2005, 02:27 PM

I agree, Skip Bayless scares me like a bogeyman.

Young Drachma · 06-20-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I swear people are retarded in this regard.

Tiger played great. Campbell earned it, period.

To expect a guy to win like Tiger did in his "streak" is just absurd. Impossible in this day when everyone followed Woods' lead and approaches the game a little differently now.

He's very much the same player. Everyone else has raised the bar. Give Tiger a break please. He's still the best golfer anyone of us has ever seen. I mean he won the freaking MASTERS this year.

I really can't stand the false scrutiny. It's just media talking to media to have something to talk about.

I'm generally with you on this one. I think the media unfairly expects him to win every tournament. But here's why they expect it. It's because Tiger set the bar that high.

When Tiger came on Tour, he set a goal to get to the Players Championship that year. He did it, when no other rookie would have a prayer of doing such a thing.

Tiger was bloodthirsty. Tiger didn't lose, Tiger didn't smile and appreciate second. Tiger hits birdies when he needed them and that's not happening. Like it or not, he's not the same player that he once was.

He won the Masters because he was up against Chris DiMarco, rather than say, all those other players who supposedly "got better." Make no mistake, Vijay is playing awesome. But when it matters most, Tiger is the only one who can truly will himself to win.

And that used to be commonplace. But now it's not.

So I think it's okay to say "hey, where did the old guy go." Because the guy from last night, surely isn't the Tiger of old.

Young Drachma · 06-20-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

He is just saying stuff here to get the type of response I made. He's a genius that way I guess. Say stupid stuff and get people worked up.

That's in the columnist playbook so I guess I'm not surprised.

Agreed.

rkmsuf · 06-20-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'm generally with you on this one. I think the media unfairly expects him to win every tournament. But here's why they expect it. It's because Tiger set the bar that high.

When Tiger came on Tour, he set a goal to get to the Players Championship that year. He did it, when no other rookie would have a prayer of doing such a thing.

Tiger was bloodthirsty. Tiger didn't lose, Tiger didn't smile and appreciate second. Tiger hits birdies when he needed them and that's not happening. Like it or not, he's not the same player that he once was.

He won the Masters because he was up against Chris DiMarco, rather than say, all those other players who supposedly "got better." Make no mistake, Vijay is playing awesome. But when it matters most, Tiger is the only one who can truly will himself to win.

And that used to be commonplace. But now it's not.

So I think it's okay to say "hey, where did the old guy go." Because the guy from last night, surely isn't the Tiger of old.

I guess I'm not sure what people expect from the guy. It's like unless he wins every single time he's somehow slipping. Even your comment about the Masters is full of that. He won yeah but....

but what?

What the guy isn't allowed to live a life outside of golf and still bring it like he has? Make no mistake, he brings it every shot. He's one guy I will never question in terms of effort and dedication. Ever.

BrianD · 06-20-2005, 02:35 PM

I just get annoyed that Tiger is the main story at every tournament. Even after Saturday's round, I heard more about him than about Goosen or Gore.

rkmsuf · 06-20-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianD

I just get annoyed that Tiger is the main story at every tournament. Even after Saturday's round, I heard more about him than about Goosen or Gore.

Of course. He's the person everyone wants to see. For good reason. He's easily the best and going for 2 consecutive Majors.

Don't even pretend you are remotely interested in Gore or Goosen who both really brought it that last round.

rkmsuf · 06-20-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Agreed.

What aggravates me is the visual of Bayless sitting there after Campbell holes out thinking "Hmm...what can I do to get people talking with a column...hmm...ohh I know, some Tiger bashing...yeah that will do it."

Just bothers me. I feel like there's a lack of genuine opinion out there...not just this guy.

kcchief19 · 06-20-2005, 03:01 PM

Here's the silly thing ... Tiger is still Tiger. He still hits shots no one else can hit. He still hits the ball straighter and farther than anyone else. And even when his driver goes astray -- which it always has -- he still reach the green from the rough with a two-iron from 240 yards out.

The difference between Tiger in 2000-2003 and the Tiger right now is his putter. Tiger has always been a drive for show, putt for dough guy. Yes he gets an advantage because he can hit more creative shots than the other guys and can reach more par-5s in two than most guys, but that's only a couple of shots per tournament.

If Tiger putted this weekend the way he putting in 2000 at the Open, he would have won this thing by 20. He's giving away shots on the green he didn't use to give away. He's been tweaking his swing for the last couple of years, but it's the putter that's letting him down. If you look at the majors he's won, it was because he was rolling in 35-footers and putting lights out.

If Tiger gets his putting stroke back, he'll been back to tearing apart every course on tour. But even a Tiger who can't putt is better than almost every other guy on tour.

kcchief19 · 06-20-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't have any particular opinion about Tiger or golf or apparel in general... but if Skip Bayless said something, I think he's an idiot.

Was I mistaken 10-15 years ago when I thought Bayless as a better than average journalist? Or did he just make a pack with satan and sell out his soul for a couple of dollars and some ketchup packets? Whichever it is, I'm on board with the idiot thing.

I watch about 95 percent less ESPN than I used to and I swear my biggest reason for not watching is that I'm afraid he and Steven A. Smith will suddenly appear on screen.

MalcPow · 06-20-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Here's the silly thing ... Tiger is still Tiger. He still hits shots no one else can hit. He still hits the ball straighter and farther than anyone else. And even when his driver goes astray -- which it always has -- he still reach the green from the rough with a two-iron from 240 yards out.

The difference between Tiger in 2000-2003 and the Tiger right now is his putter. Tiger has always been a drive for show, putt for dough guy. Yes he gets an advantage because he can hit more creative shots than the other guys and can reach more par-5s in two than most guys, but that's only a couple of shots per tournament.

If Tiger putted this weekend the way he putting in 2000 at the Open, he would have won this thing by 20. He's giving away shots on the green he didn't use to give away. He's been tweaking his swing for the last couple of years, but it's the putter that's letting him down. If you look at the majors he's won, it was because he was rolling in 35-footers and putting lights out.

If Tiger gets his putting stroke back, he'll been back to tearing apart every course on tour. But even a Tiger who can't putt is better than almost every other guy on tour.

I agree with this. For all the talk about overhauling his swing, and changing drivers, and blah blah blah, the biggest difference has been on the greens. He's just not as consistent, and what was once a big strength has been letting him down of late.

rkmsuf · 06-20-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcPow

I agree with this. For all the talk about overhauling his swing, and changing drivers, and blah blah blah, the biggest difference has been on the greens. He's just not as consistent, and what was once a big strength has been letting him down of late.

Again, letting him down? I mean he already won a Major and 3 tournaments this year.

He plays less but 1st in the Masters and 2nd in the US Open is hardly anything "letting him down".

The fact he's the only guy that HAS to win the British or hear this speaks volumes.

Nobody gives a crap that Sergio, Goosen, Els, Vijay, Mickelson or Scott couldn't beat him. Suddenly he can't putt.

BrianD · 06-20-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Of course. He's the person everyone wants to see. For good reason. He's easily the best and going for 2 consecutive Majors.

Don't even pretend you are remotely interested in Gore or Goosen who both really brought it that last round.

I was totally interested in Gore by the end of Saturday. He was a much better story than Tiger was, yet there was more talk about Tiger than about Gore. As it turned out Tiger held it together much better than Gore did, but Gore was still the better story.

MalcPow · 06-20-2005, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Again, letting him down? I mean he already won a Major and 3 tournaments this year.

He plays less but 1st in the Masters and 2nd in the US Open is hardly anything "letting him down".

The fact he's the only guy that HAS to win the British or hear this speaks volumes.

Nobody gives a crap that Sergio, Goosen, Els, Vijay, Mickelson or Scott couldn't beat him. Suddenly he can't putt.

You're right, he's the best. That's why when he doesn't play better than everyone else, people talk about it.

rkmsuf · 06-20-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianD

I was totally interested in Gore by the end of Saturday. He was a much better story than Tiger was, yet there was more talk about Tiger than about Gore. As it turned out Tiger held it together much better than Gore did, but Gore was still the better story.

Well Gore was A story but hardly THE story. I mean who gives a crap about a guy who fires and 84 or whatever he did Sunday.

How stupid would NBC look to feature a guy to millions who can't make a par. They showed him plenty but let's face it. Who will watch for Gore? And everyone was correct.

When you get to it, what story is he anyway? He's just a guy who shot a couple good rounds. Woods is a guy who transcends the sport. It's amazing how that is discarded so readily.

rkmsuf · 06-20-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcPow

You're right, he's the best. That's why when he doesn't play better than everyone else, people talk about it.

But he did play better than everyone else except for one guy who provided an exceptional performance. What is wrong with Tiger's game in that light?

Nobody would say Campbell didn't earn it.

BrianD · 06-20-2005, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Well Gore was A story but hardly THE story. I mean who gives a crap about a guy who fires and 84 or whatever he did Sunday.

How stupid would NBC look to feature a guy to millions who can't make a par. They showed him plenty but let's face it. Who will watch for Gore? And everyone was correct.

When you get to it, what story is he anyway? He's just a guy who shot a couple good rounds. Woods is a guy who transcends the sport. It's amazing how that is discarded so readily.

And I suppose everyone knew he was going to shoot an 84 on Sunday? He should have been one of the biggest stories until he fell apart. Tiger is a great player, but he wasn't even the biggest story on Sunday. Campbell matched his charge and posted the same score on Sunday to win by two strokes. Even when Tiger birdied 18 to cut the lead to two, Campbell answered by getting a birdie on 17 to basically ice the match. Campbell made some very good shots our of the rough all day on Sunday. Tiger finished second from the bottom of the field in putting. He did well to score as well as he did considering how crappy his putting was. Tiger is like the chick auto racers. Even when he isn't worth talking about, he still leads all of the headlines.

rkmsuf · 06-20-2005, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianD

And I suppose everyone knew he was going to shoot an 84 on Sunday? He should have been one of the biggest stories until he fell apart. Tiger is a great player, but he wasn't even the biggest story on Sunday. Campbell matched his charge and posted the same score on Sunday to win by two strokes. Even when Tiger birdied 18 to cut the lead to two, Campbell answered by getting a birdie on 17 to basically ice the match. Campbell made some very good shots our of the rough all day on Sunday. Tiger finished second from the bottom of the field in putting. He did well to score as well as he did considering how crappy his putting was. Tiger is like the chick auto racers. Even when he isn't worth talking about, he still leads all of the headlines.

give me a break

panerd · 06-20-2005, 03:40 PM

The genral public wants to see Tiger Woods. They want to see Hulk Hogan. They want to see the New York Yankees. They want to see Duke. They want to see the Runaway bride. They want to see the Michael Jackson jury. We may not like it. It may not make sense to us, but beleive me if NBC thought they would get more viewers they would have shown Gore. The only time three of my relatives watched the US Open yesterday was when Tiger was on. I have a feeling this is the mjority of the viewing market during PGA majors.

MalcPow · 06-20-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

But he did play better than everyone else except for one guy who provided an exceptional performance. What is wrong with Tiger's game in that light?

Nobody would say Campbell didn't earn it.

I think he is not as dominant as he once was, and I think it's because he doesn't putt as well as he once did. He's still the best in the world, he just isn't as dominant, maybe everyone is a lot better but he just doesn't seem as sharp on the greens to me as he did a few years ago. I'm not on the oh he sucks and he's a choker bandwagon, cause he clearly isn't either of those things (but I agree he's not dressing as well), but he was an amazingly dominant force for a while, and we're not seeing that same dominance from him now. It's not blasphemy to say that.

BrianD · 06-20-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

The genral public wants to see Tiger Woods. They want to see Hulk Hogan. They want to see the New York Yankees. They want to see Duke. They want to see the Runaway bride. They want to see the Michael Jackson jury. We may not like it. It may not make sense to us, but beleive me if NBC thought they would get more viewers they would have shown Gore. The only time three of my relatives watched the US Open yesterday was when Tiger was on. I have a feeling this is the mjority of the viewing market during PGA majors.

This is the part that bothers me. I want to watch the leaders...not just the 1st place guy and Tiger. I also want to hear the stories of some of the top guys in the running. Nobody will ever get to learn much about most golfers because nobody talks about them unless they are in 1st place. The second or third place guys could have some great stories, but we never get to hear them because the only person anyone wants to talk about or hear about was Tiger.

Now, moving up 5 places to finish second at the US Open is a feat worthy of plenty of media attention on Sunday. He was a good guy to be talked about on Sunday. I just think he got way too much press earlier in the week. It bothered me when I finally got to see an interview with Gore and one of the first questions asked was about Tiger.

If I'm watching a golf tournament, I'd like to see Tiger in the hunt for the win, or so far back that he is done with his round by the time the leaders tee off. If he's back in 10th-15th place, he will still get every one of his shots televised, even if he isn't making up any ground.

Maybe I'm just one of the few guys that likes to watch golf for the golf and not just for Tiger's performance.

albionmoonlight · 06-20-2005, 03:50 PM

One of the things that sucks about being a "true fan" of [fill in the blank--golf, racing, football, wrestling, poker, etc.] is that the networks know that you are going to watch the event and are not catering to you. Their job is to get the eyeballs of the people who didn't even know that there was golf being played until they overheard someone mentioning it in the grocery store that morning.

Those people want to watch Tiger. They want to see Danica. They want to root for Hulk Hogan. They want to recognize Johnnie Chan. And they get what they want.

The "true" fan? Your viewship is mostly assured. Sure, they don't want you to get so disgusted that you stop watching at all--but they know that it will take a lot to get you to tune out. And they will push that envelope if it means that they can snag a few thousand extra "bandwagon" fans by dumbing down the coverage.

KWhit · 06-20-2005, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

He won the Masters because he was up against Chris DiMarco, rather than say, all those other players who supposedly "got better."

That's funny. I thought Tiger won the Masters against all the top players, not just DiMarco.

Didn't Mickelson, Singh, Toms, Els, etc. all play in the Masters too? And didn't they all lose to Woods?

BrianD · 06-20-2005, 03:51 PM

dola

I suppose it should probably be said that I love to see a great Tiger comeback as much as anyone. I never root against him, and I do enjoy seeing him be dominant. If he is kicking ass, I enjoy watching it. I just don't feel the need to hear about him all the time even if he isn't playing well.

KWhit · 06-20-2005, 03:54 PM

He's like the Yankees. He is the main story in the sport.

When he's playing well, it's a story in the vein of "He we go again. He's on the prowl." When he's playing poorly the story is about his struggles.

Either way, it makes for good TV.

Mr. Wednesday · 06-20-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Again, letting him down? I mean he already won a Major and 3 tournaments this year.

He plays less but 1st in the Masters and 2nd in the US Open is hardly anything "letting him down".

Finishing last or second-to-last in putting most certainly is "letting him down". The only reason he finished 2nd was that he was hitting more greens than anybody else.

RainRaven · 06-20-2005, 05:03 PM

Tiger is the only reason I have watched a moment of golf since he hit the scene. Before Tiger I could care less about what happened at the Masters, U.S Open or otherwise. I watched the final round at the Masters to see Tiger win again. I didn't care about a single other golfer on the course not because I don't appreciate good shots but because to me Tiger is another animal all together. I did not watch the U.S Open on Sunday mostly because I thought even 7 shots at that course was too much for him. I flipped it on late and watched the rest because Tiger was in second and I wanted to see him win the whole thing. He is a rare player that seems to be so ultra-competitive that I can associate with. I hate losing in anything I do and watching him is entertaining because it seems he grinds away no matter the sitution. Maybe Tiger isn't what he once was in the "golden" years but if Tiger isn't in the tourney then I don't care about the round of golf and maybe that's a bad thing for golf overall but I think that's how the casual viewer looks at it as well.

KWhit · 06-20-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Finishing last or second-to-last in putting most certainly is "letting him down". The only reason he finished 2nd was that he was hitting more greens than anybody else.

Golf stats are very deceiving. He played conservatively Thurs-Sat, hitting to the center of greens often far away from the pin. He was #1 in greens in regulation. So someone else may have missed a green, chipped up, and made a putt for par. If, on the same hole, Tiger hits the middle of the green and two putts for par, they would have made the same score, but Tiger would have had twice as many putts.

His putting wasn't great, but it wasn't nearly as bad as the stats make it look.

Vinatieri for Prez · 06-20-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't have any particular opinion about Tiger or golf or apparel in general... but if Skip Bayless said something, I think he's an idiot.

I didn't read the whole thread. and QS's comment is why. The guy is a complete moron and has ABSOLUTELY no clue about sports, especially the NFL.

B & B · 06-20-2005, 11:08 PM

His putting was poor at best. Conservative and short on over half his first attempts because he was worried about a possible runoff on the turtle shell greens.

Vijay played the same way. Pathetic.

JonInMiddleGA · 06-21-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainRaven

Tiger is the only reason I have watched a moment of golf since he hit the scene. Before Tiger I could care less about what happened at the Masters, U.S Open or otherwise.

And I'm the exact opposite. I used to be an occasional "casual viewer" but I give less than a rat's ass about hearing "Tiger this" and "Tiger that" unless he's in contention.

The shift toward "All Tiger, All the Time" dropped my golf viewing to zero.

06-20-2005, 02:22 PM	#3
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	I swear people are retarded in this regard. Tiger played great. Campbell earned it, period. To expect a guy to win like Tiger did in his "streak" is just absurd. Impossible in this day when everyone followed Woods' lead and approaches the game a little differently now. He's very much the same player. Everyone else has raised the bar. Give Tiger a break please. He's still the best golfer anyone of us has ever seen. I mean he won the freaking MASTERS this year. I really can't stand the false scrutiny. It's just media talking to media to have something to talk about. __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales Last edited by rkmsuf : 06-20-2005 at 02:23 PM.

06-20-2005, 05:03 PM	#31
RainRaven High School JV Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Baltimore, Maryland	Tiger is the only reason I have watched a moment of golf since he hit the scene. Before Tiger I could care less about what happened at the Masters, U.S Open or otherwise. I watched the final round at the Masters to see Tiger win again. I didn't care about a single other golfer on the course not because I don't appreciate good shots but because to me Tiger is another animal all together. I did not watch the U.S Open on Sunday mostly because I thought even 7 shots at that course was too much for him. I flipped it on late and watched the rest because Tiger was in second and I wanted to see him win the whole thing. He is a rare player that seems to be so ultra-competitive that I can associate with. I hate losing in anything I do and watching him is entertaining because it seems he grinds away no matter the sitution. Maybe Tiger isn't what he once was in the "golden" years but if Tiger isn't in the tourney then I don't care about the round of golf and maybe that's a bad thing for golf overall but I think that's how the casual viewer looks at it as well. __________________ "It can't rain all the time"-The Crow

06-20-2005, 11:08 PM	#34
B & B College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: A sports era long ago when everything didnt require a Nike logo	His putting was poor at best. Conservative and short on over half his first attempts because he was worried about a possible runoff on the turtle shell greens. Vijay played the same way. Pathetic. __________________ Nobody cares about Kyle Orton because he's black. -PT

06-20-2005, 02:23 PM	#4
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I don't have any particular opinion about Tiger or golf or apparel in general... but if Skip Bayless said something, I think he's an idiot.

06-20-2005, 02:27 PM	#6
MalcPow College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: San Diego	I agree, Skip Bayless scares me like a bogeyman.

06-20-2005, 02:35 PM	#10
BrianD Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	I just get annoyed that Tiger is the main story at every tournament. Even after Saturday's round, I heard more about him than about Goosen or Gore.

06-20-2005, 03:01 PM	#13
kcchief19 Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO	Here's the silly thing ... Tiger is still Tiger. He still hits shots no one else can hit. He still hits the ball straighter and farther than anyone else. And even when his driver goes astray -- which it always has -- he still reach the green from the rough with a two-iron from 240 yards out. The difference between Tiger in 2000-2003 and the Tiger right now is his putter. Tiger has always been a drive for show, putt for dough guy. Yes he gets an advantage because he can hit more creative shots than the other guys and can reach more par-5s in two than most guys, but that's only a couple of shots per tournament. If Tiger putted this weekend the way he putting in 2000 at the Open, he would have won this thing by 20. He's giving away shots on the green he didn't use to give away. He's been tweaking his swing for the last couple of years, but it's the putter that's letting him down. If you look at the majors he's won, it was because he was rolling in 35-footers and putting lights out. If Tiger gets his putting stroke back, he'll been back to tearing apart every course on tour. But even a Tiger who can't putt is better than almost every other guy on tour.

06-20-2005, 03:40 PM	#23
panerd Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: St. Louis	The genral public wants to see Tiger Woods. They want to see Hulk Hogan. They want to see the New York Yankees. They want to see Duke. They want to see the Runaway bride. They want to see the Michael Jackson jury. We may not like it. It may not make sense to us, but beleive me if NBC thought they would get more viewers they would have shown Gore. The only time three of my relatives watched the US Open yesterday was when Tiger was on. I have a feeling this is the mjority of the viewing market during PGA majors.

06-20-2005, 03:50 PM	#26
albionmoonlight Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Carolina	One of the things that sucks about being a "true fan" of [fill in the blank--golf, racing, football, wrestling, poker, etc.] is that the networks know that you are going to watch the event and are not catering to you. Their job is to get the eyeballs of the people who didn't even know that there was golf being played until they overheard someone mentioning it in the grocery store that morning. Those people want to watch Tiger. They want to see Danica. They want to root for Hulk Hogan. They want to recognize Johnnie Chan. And they get what they want. The "true" fan? Your viewship is mostly assured. Sure, they don't want you to get so disgusted that you stop watching at all--but they know that it will take a lot to get you to tune out. And they will push that envelope if it means that they can snag a few thousand extra "bandwagon" fans by dumbing down the coverage.

06-20-2005, 03:51 PM	#28
BrianD Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	dola I suppose it should probably be said that I love to see a great Tiger comeback as much as anyone. I never root against him, and I do enjoy seeing him be dominant. If he is kicking ass, I enjoy watching it. I just don't feel the need to hear about him all the time even if he isn't playing well.

06-20-2005, 03:54 PM	#29
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	He's like the Yankees. He is the main story in the sport. When he's playing well, it's a story in the vein of "He we go again. He's on the prowl." When he's playing poorly the story is about his struggles. Either way, it makes for good TV.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)