Definition of "almost winning"

by Espen Uldal on Apr 13, 2009 11:39 AM EDT

"I almost won the tournament with a band-aid swing." That's what Tiger said after the Masters. I must have missed that version of this years first major. I did not see him close to the top spot at any time sunday, and I did not see him even be close to a play off. What I saw was Phil Mickelson making a splendid first nine holes and making things interesting pretty fast - and I saw Tiger trail Mickelson all day. Another thing I saw: I saw Mickelson miss some important putts that could have put HIM in a play off. And I saw Kenny Perry make to bogeys on 17 and 18. But never mind...

FanPosts are written by Waggle Room members. Viewpoints expressed do not necessarily reflect those of WaggleRoom.com, editor, Charles Boyer or any other writer or member.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Tiger had it close. He was at -10 at one point when the lead was -11. It quickly went to -12.

by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 13, 2009 12:15 PM EDT reply actions

Close, but...

Ryan -

Sure, he was in the mix for a while, but the three guy’s in the playoff was “almost winning”. Tiger ended 4 shots behind. That’s loosing – no matter who you are :-)

Best regrads,
Espen

by Espen Uldal on Apr 13, 2009 12:58 PM EDT reply actions

Espen:

Did Tiger Woods run over your dog? Or make a pass at your wife? Your dislike of the man reminds me of Elvis shooting his television when the visage of Robert Goulet appeared onscreen.

The fact of the matter is that Tiger played a grand total of 10 rounds of tournament golf in the nine months preceding the Masters and his play still managed to put him in the conversation on Sunday. To my mind, that’s quite a feat.

"Golf is a game whose aim is to hit a very small ball into a even smaller hole, with weapons singularly ill-designed for the purpose." - Winston Churchill

by turnover on Apr 13, 2009 2:15 PM EDT reply actions

I’m with turnover in his opinion about Woods. He got to within one of the lead. That’s pretty significant considering it was clear that he had nothing all week. I will agree that Perry and Campbell, Katayama, and Mickelson were all closer to winning than he was.

by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 13, 2009 3:25 PM EDT reply actions

@Turnover and Ryan

I think Tiger is an outstanding player, no doubt, But he came in a distand 6th – not a close second.

Tiger him self would not have taken such a statement well if he had won and some player four shots off the lead had claimed he “almost won with his B-game”. Remember what he said about Ian Poulter when the Brit said that he would feel like No. 1 in the world if he ever became #2 in the world ranking? And this Poulter said out of respect but still Tiger made a joke out of Poulter.

What Tiger did was big after so few rounds this season, but I don’t think that’s the point. I’m sure lot’s of player’s could say every week “I would have won if…” Steve Flesh and Steve Stricker came in 6th too; did they also “almost win”?

You can break all tournaments down, saying “this guy was that-under” at one point.

Tiger was 10-under at one point. Mickelson made double bogey and misse two short putts on back9. Still Mickelson did not win and in the end he was three shots away.

It was a great hype Tiger and Phil made, but in reallity Cabrera and Perry (and Campbell) was in charge of who won and Perry was the one throwing away a good chance of winning – not Tiger.

Just an observation: When fouth round startet PGATOUR.com had a big picture of Tiger, saying he would make history if he won this won from so far behind. In the end Mickelson did better from the same position (oh, and Phil was 6-under for the day on the first eight holes, but who cares :-)

Five guys ended ahead of Tiger. But still Tiger was the one “almost winning”.

I don’t want to sound Anti-Tiger, but i guess I’m a little puzzled about how reality can be twisted so that Tiger can almost win a tournament he lost clearly.

On thing is being a fan (or the media that is ignoring everything that does not include Tiger). Another thing is being anti everything not Tiger.

Best regrads,
Espen

by Espen Uldal on Apr 14, 2009 6:21 AM EDT reply actions

I don’t think that Woods meant that comment quite literally. I think he realized how close he had gotten and thought that if he could get to the lead, then he could hold onto it. If he came home in par-par, maybe things are different (though not likely). If he comes in at -1, then -11 may win. It’s a fine line.

I saw Lawrence Donegan’s column that berated Woods for this comment and thought it was a bit sensationalist. While I agree that Woods was not gracious at all in defeat, I don’t think that he has to be. It’s his choice and he knows the consequences in the press, and he just doesn’t care.

by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 14, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions

From a british point of view...

This is an interesting article by Lawrence Donegan in The Guardian.

Please read: Sour grapes threaten bitter Tiger Woods’ reputation

Best regrads,
Espen

by Espen Uldal on Apr 14, 2009 5:43 PM EDT reply actions

I referenced this article already – sensationalist in its language, but some of the points ring true.

by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 14, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions

I missed that comment...

…it’s an arrogant type of statement we haven’t heard since his first full year on tour when he said that he won without his “A game”. I’m surprised. I thought he was long past saying things like that.

On the other hand – it’s an admission that he ISN’T 100% – also something we don’t hear often from him. (gee – who’s been saying that he’s not 100% ? oh yeah it was me) :-D

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Apr 15, 2009 12:21 PM EDT reply actions