............according to Notah Begay. Not surprising at all.

Too bad, but I think we probably already knew that since most doctors are saying 3-4 months. Honestly I will be surprised if he's back for the British.

Honestly I'd rather him take the time he needs and come back 100%. He's been trying to do too much. JMO

I guess I just don't get the tiger love. I have never been a fan of his and I played high school golf through the tiger years.

I am more excited that the fields are challenging with different players every week.

I would be curious to hear what the old timers say about Arnold Palmer. I guess he was the tiger of that time. I will,also admit that some of it may be jealousy...

I thought the masters was incredible without him. Didn't have to watch him playing every shot while 10 strokes back and got to watch a lot of good golf from a lot of guys we wouldn't have seen on tv if tiger was there.

quote:

---

I thought the masters was incredible without him. Didn't have to watch him playing every shot while 10 strokes back and got to watch a lot of good golf from a lot of guys we wouldn't have seen on tv if tiger was there.

---

Couldn't disagree more. The coverage Sunday was awful. They showed the final group for about 80 percent of the time, the second to lat group for about 15 percent, and the last 5 percent was spread among other golfers. We didn't see a lot of golf from a lot of different guys. We saw a lot of Bubba and Jordan talking to their caddies.

The coverage sucked and so did the ratings.

^^^
I'm in agreement, didn't particularly enjoy the coverage Sunday. I do agree that I hate to watch Tiger play even when he's not in contention but the Masters didn't do a great job (IMO)

Tiger was definitely missed at The Masters.

His haters deny it for some reason, but its no different than if Jack or Arnie missed a tourney back in the day. Not the same without him.

[This message has been edited by DRE06 (edited 4/15/2014 7:36a).]

I guess they could have shown more of Jimenez or Blixt but does that really excite people? No one shot better than 71 except Bubba on Sunday in the final 4-5 groups, that's why the coverage sucked. I think we were spoiled by the last few years.

I'm no Tiger lover but I agree --- he was missed last week and the Sunday back nine was a bore.

CBS effed up so bad trying to make it Spieth vs. Bubba. There was a lot of good golf being played on the course elsewhere, as there is every Masters. Miguel Angel Jimenez put together some good **** for a 50 year old. I don't care if Rory and Adam are out of it, I'd rather watch them play a shot than see another casual stroll and talk between the caddies and last twosome.

Heck, when Schwartzel won he sort of did it out of nowhere. It's a joke that when Tiger wasn't even in the field, the coverage was more centralized than ever. BERNARD LANGER FINISHED TOP10 and we didn't even see or hear ANY of it until 15 minutes AFTER Bubba won. Good lord.

End rant.

quote:

---

The coverage Sunday was awful. They showed the final group for about 80 percent of the time, the second to lat group for about 15 percent, and the last 5 percent was spread among other golfers. We didn't see a lot of golf from a lot of different guys. We saw a lot of Bubba and Jordan talking to their caddies.

---

Completely agree. It's not the same without Tiger. Even the wife (who despises Tiger for obvious reasons) said something didn't feel the same about the Sunday coverage. I didn't have the guts to say it was because she secretly missed [bashing on] the Tiger coverage.

EDIT: This may just be my opinion, but I've always thought Sunday coverage of Majors seemed to be more along the lines of "Who's going to catch Tiger", or "Can Tiger catch the leaders". This past Sunday it seemed like "Who's going to win, Bubba or Spieth" and no attention was paid to the rest of the field...

[This message has been edited by AgHunter2011 (edited 4/15/2014 8:32a).]

I don't know if I agree with the bash of the masters coverage, I do however see the points being made.

This became a match play tournament after 8 and 9. In my opinion if Kuchar starts making birdies and gets closer down the stretch they follow him.

Either way i think people will need to find a new golf hero. Tiger is getting older and unfortunately i think this will become the new normal.

The media themselves don't have a horse either. Rory flopped, fowler is hard to watch because of what his clothes do to the focus of the camera. Jordan might be their new guy.

It will be interesting but they will have a new star in no time.

quote:

---

This past Sunday it seemed like "Who's going to win, Bubba or Spieth" and no attention was paid to the rest of the field...

---

I think this would have been different if anyone else was threatening the leaders.

Sure, but still, it's a golf broadcast. Show more golf.

Kinda my point too powerbelly. Jimemez was overpar early then made a "run" to finish -1 for the day. Blixt was E on the front then -1 on the back. Not exactly compelling golf. Would I like to see shots rather than Bubba talking to his caddie, sure, but lets not pretend some guy was making 5 birdies down the stretch charging from behind. Also, when a guy routinely hits 330+ yard drives, they're gonna keep showing him.

But we're not asking for them to not show every shot Bubba and Jordan hit. Just asking for them to do what they manage to do at every other tournament and juggle the action and actually show more golf. Especially at Augusta National, viewers want to see more examples of the treacherous greens, the beautiful fairways, etc.

Exactly, Watty. When you see the contrast between the pros in how they play each hole and handle different problems that they face, it heightens the viewer quality for that last twosome.

The field and the conditions didn't do CBS any favors. Bubba shot even par on the back and could've been caught but nobody was making any birdies. Had Spieth made his putts on 15 and 16 then it would've been high drama going into 18.

Personally the reason I root for Tiger is because I got to the party too late. I didn't really start playing at all until I got married in 2006 (as a way to bond with my father in law), didn't start playing seriously until I got to Denver in 2007, and didn't start really watching golf until after that. Honestly when I was on vacation with my wife's family and my FIL and I snuck off to Chili's to watch the US Open playoff in 2008, that might have been the very first time that I ever went out of my way to sit down and watch a golf tournament. So I never got a chance to enjoy watching the "old Tiger" so I'm hoping to catch some fading glimpses before he gets too old. I hope I'm not too late.

The thing that hurt the Masters more than anything this year was, as Bunk posted on another thread, no dramatic lead changes and roars shaking the pines.

The back 9 is the ultimate risk / reward layout in golf. There can be multiple lead changes among a half dozen players in the blink of an eye, and the thunderous sound is magnified through the pines in a spectacular ebb and flow. It alternates between complete silence and the sound of a championship football game. This has happened on numerous occasions in the period after Jack / before Tiger and is what makes the Masters second to none.

If 11, 13 and 15 could hold iron shots better I think you'd see a lot more of this....anyone think the course become too penal to encourage what used to happen with regularity?

I don't think so. The course still gives up plenty of eagles and birdies on the back nine. You have to hit good shots though.

CBS got caught hope hoping for a back and forth duel on the back 9 that never materialized. MAJ and Langer, among others, should have received a lot more. They abandoned Fowler extremely quickly.

As soon as Tiger's surgery was announced, I was anticipating the PGA being his only major appearance this year, with an outside shot at the British. I'm still thinking that's the case.

[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 4/15/2014 12:15p).]

Another problem with the coverage for me is Jim Nance. IMO he just tries too hard to make everything so dramatic. Instead of just letting the quality of golf speak for itself, he tries so hard to manufacture drama. I know a lot of people love him, but I just don't like his style.

Being from Dallas, I loved it. Spieth is a local guy and was on course to be the youngest Masters winner ever. Once he rolled off the front of 12 they should have changed it up. Kuchar was an acrobat saving pars out there and Blixt is the real deal.

Let's be honest. Golf without Tiger S-U-C-K-S.

When he's gone, golf is going to suffer immensely. This year's Masters was a bleak foreshadowing of what is to come.

Couldn't disagree more. Was a golf fan long before Tiger and will be long after, and the game will go on just fine too. I don't give a **** about network ratings. In fact, I wouldn't mind less golfers. Easier to get a tee time and less hackers to get in my way.

[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 4/16/2014 5:01p).]

quote:

---

This year's Masters was a bleak foreshadowing of what is to come.

---

I think this year's Masters was bleak because nobody manned up and made a run at Bubba on the back nine.

quote:

---

Couldn't disagree more. Was a golf fan long before Tiger and will be long after, and the game will go on just fine too. I don't give a **** about network ratings. In fact, I wouldn't mind less golfers. Easier to get a tee time and less hackers to get in my way.

---

Everything you said is just your own opinion though. It doesn't change the fact that golf overall will suffer. That's his point. You're even admitting that you don't mind if golf suffers because you'd like it.

Golf wasn't suffering in 1996. What Tiger brought to the game is some casual tv viewers that raised network bottom lines and purses. But his impact to participation, equipment sales, etc hasn't been significant by any means - even measurable. I've seen numerous articles about this over the years. So if "golf" is defined by how much money the networks make, then maybe there is "suffering", but that is not how I define the game of golf. The overall game will keep doing what it's always done. My tee time comment was more tongue in cheek.

And specifically what I couldn't disagree more with is that golf SUCKS without Tiger.

[This message has been edited by DannyDuberstein (edited 4/17/2014 8:28a).]

For some facts vs opinion

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tigers-years-dominance-have-done-little-grow-recreational-golf?mobile=n

He did relatively little for recreational golf play but did increase prize purses simply by increasing golf viewership.

Interesting article, Danny. Thanks for posting.

Tiger didn't make golf equipment and green fees cost less (if so, I'm assuming it's very marginal). Those barriers will always prevent a lot of people from taking up golf.