Jump to content

Tiger Woods


BS Wildcats

Recommended Posts

Ole Tiger... After he figured out there was more to life than golf he has gone, I guess smart..... Kamillions of dollars and hot blondes, porn stars, hookers, waitresses, escorts... I guess I would be struggling as well..... Lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

85 today, he shot an 85.  That's only 10 strokes better than me.  

Ten worse than you but i would bet that course is quite a bit tougher than the ones you are playing!  He has more troubles than a swing change.  His mental game is nowhere near where it was several years ago.  Not near as confident and now he is not feared!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no swing coach or pro but just looking at his swing, he looks like he is trying to smash everything and hit the ball as far as he did 5 or 6 years ago... With the quality of the younger generation of golfers emerging, I personally don't think he will win another major.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no swing coach or pro but just looking at his swing, he looks like he is trying to smash everything and hit the ball as far as he did 5 or 6 years ago... With the quality of the younger generation of golfers emerging, I personally don't think he will win another major.

Goes to show even more the greatness of Jack Nicklaus!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I was thinking about Tiger today as Watson made his last loop in the country where he is probably most revered.  While Tiger has gone through caddies like strippers, Tom was helping his with his bag, and sitting with him as he died of cancer.  If you haven't read Caddy for Life about Watson and Bruce Edwards, I highly recommend it.  Some of John Feinstein's best work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, thanks for the tip.  Will be my next Kindle buy.  Love to read.  Bad back makes golf difficult and get a hangover after 3 beers, so reading is about all I have except watching them G'kids. I love that even when they use to play soccer in Ltown. Both pretty good athletes.  Take after G'ma.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that Woods needs to befriend someone else' wife. Dufner's isn't giving him the edge he needs. At +7, he will not make the cut at The Open.

​i think he is i denial that he's washed up. In his interviews he's always saying "he's right there" smh. Right where? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Since we are talking about history when we talk about Tiger, let's go way back...

I wish players like Hogan, Nelson, Jones, Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Watson,.....and countless others had had access to today's technology of clubs and balls. Some of thise older guys played with wooden shaft clubs. My Dad had a set. I learned with them. I guess it would have all evened out since all players would have had the same gear. 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...