Talk:Tiger Woods/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Initial comments

this is fun. I like how the second and third criticisms cancel each other!

What is "the IIHS?" -- Zoe

Workouts

Alot is said about his workouts. A golfer friend of mine once claimed that Tiger could bench upwards of three hundred pounds. Any information on this and should it be included?

Practice

Shouldn't you add something about Tiger's practice routine, hardwork and dedication to become the 'Tiger"? He is an icon of professionalism and success. His dedication can be worthy for the learners. imroz=

Father's Death?

I know it was deleted for vandalism, but shouldn't it be mentioned in the 'family' section? Maybe? Ubuntu Dude 23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Death of Earl Woods

Tiger Woods dad Earl Woods died of cancer on May 3, 2006 and Tiger Woods did not play again in a golf tournament until US Open June 16 where the first and second days he shot each day 76 and so did not make the cut the first time in his career.

While Tiger has proven his champion status as a golfer repeatedly, esp via the intense coaching of his father during his earliest years, he has also shown periods of inability to score when intentionally not using his swing coach.

So the golf world waits to see if this US Open bad performance, will be repeated this golf season due to Tiger "grieving" the death of his father.

[Added 06-24-2006] After his disasterous outing at the U.S. open, Tiger Woods finished second at the Cialis Western and won the British Open for the second straight year. Tiger appears to be letting his results answer to critics who thought he might have lost his edge.

Oh yeah, he also won the 2006 PGA Championship.

Champion - Child or Man

Tiger is 30 years old, but with a very boyish face still; so the death of his dad is a test of his maturity -is he still a child or a grown man able to deal with life including close relative's death and go on in his profession.

Or will he collapse and whine - his past seeming overfocus disrupting his large athletic skill. For years.

Some whine today winning Brit Open with score of - 18 !! But with that leading, oustanding golf , he did get emotional ? again ?

Should a champion athletically ALSO be a grown man ?

I think you should get a blog.Ernham 04:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

caddy

There no mention on the page of his caddy Steve Williams. I belive there should be although not sure wher to put it or anything about him.

[added 16-Jun-06] Steve Williams is mentioned in "Charity and youth projects" section. However, in the Family and background section, there is this statement, "His cousin, Robert Woods, the famous volunteer firefighter, has been rumored to become his new caddy." Reeallly???? PKT 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC) PKT The part about Robert Woods has been removed now, thanks to 'Stoomey' PKT 13:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there should be anymore than 1 line about Williams. This is a page about Tiger Woods, and Williams is only his caddy, thats all there is to it.

Rubbish. There should be something about his caddies (plural) but special mention for Williams. He and Woods are very close. How many pros have been best man for their caddies? How many pros holiday in the homeland of their caddies, and take part in their caddies sport (speedway in this case). There's a special bond there, and Woods has acknowledged it has helped his golf. Incidentally, sign your posts. Moriori 02:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Playing Style

"his iron play is generally as accurate as any player ever to play (including Nicklaus),"

  -not sure i would agree with that. any citations from golf experts?

My source was this book, I'll add it to the refs. - Davis21Wylie 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 British Open - missed four fairways the whole tournament. Teed off most of the time with irons.
11 Majors and counting (14 if you include 3 Amateur Championships, 17 if you include 3 Junior Championships)

"His bag currently contains a Nike SasQuatch 460 Driver with an 8.5 loft and custom Nike shaft, Nike Forged Blade Irons, Nike Pro Combo 56 degree wedge, and Nike One Platinum ball. His shoe is the Nike SP-7 TW Tour, and Tiger prefers Nike Golf Storm-FIT golf apparel and Dri-FIT polos."

  This information is substantially repeated (with more detail) in the "In The Bag" section.
  As the information is not used in this section to illustrate elements of his playing style
  I think it should be deleted from here. Michaelmcguire 10:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry

Can anyone confirm his actual ancestry? I mean if he is actually only 1/32nd or 1/64th native american, then I think we should remove it. Even I have about 6 different nationalities, but they are so insignificant I don't tell people about it. dave 00:10, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tiger Woods referred to his ethnicity as "Cablinasian" (CAucasian, BLack, INdian, ASIAN) on the Oprah show ( http://www.salon.com/april97/tiger970430.html ) one time. According to that article, he is 1/4 Chinese, 1/4 Thai (from his mother), 1/4 "black", 1/8 American Indian and 1/8 "white" (from his father).

Your numbers are correct, but I think it is actually his mother that is part white. I believe their ancestries go like this. Mother: 1/2 Thai, 1/4 Chinese, 1/4 white (Dutch, I think). Father: 1/2 black, 1/4 Chinese, 1/4 American Indian. Funnyhat 04:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I edited the first paragraph because his consecutive cut streak was snapped in May of '05. http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=15100&select=16225 --Mimbster 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wedding

I wonder if the details of Tiger and Elin's wedding ceremony are really necessary for an encyclopedia; It belongs to a category of their privacy. It must be a sort of "statements that will date quickly" that should be avoided, I believe. (They'll settle down as an usual, stable couple soon, not a flamboyant one.) Despite a bright superstar, Mr. Woods is a sensible man who wishes an ordinary life; He has suffered from "completely lost privacy" due to his superstardom. -222.14.94.13 12:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anarchist Golfer Association

The "Anarchist Golfer Association"? Is this even a real thing? Even if it is, does it matter? If I make a web page saying that my organization, the Golfers Who Like Potatoes, is charging Tiger Woods with destroying the habitat of moon ponies, can it get put into the article? I'm going to take it out, unless someone can show that this is acutally an important thing.

The criticism section is disproportionate

The section on criticism is much too large a part of this article. I've npoved the phrasing somewhat, but it is still wrong to give such large share of the article to this. It's not like he is a wildly controversial figure, and the article shouldn't put him on the back foot like this. The rest of the articlle should be expanded, but I'm also tempted to slash the "is Tiger Woods bad for golf?" section to a couple of short sentences as it is out of date now he has gone two whole seasons without a major. The first cricitism is of debatable relevance too. Woods isn't mentioned in the quote and he did go to Stanford for two years. Any comments? Wincoote 09:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've turned it into a "Controversy" section, Wincoote 22:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding obtuse, or even deliberately obtuse. "its (golf) allegedly negative social justice impact in Asia" sounds like post graduate gobblydeegook. How can the sport itself, as opposed to perhaps its adherents have a "negative social impact" Whatever the hell that means. I mean, in the end, like golf, life is a zero sum game, the match, played to completion, can never be halved. Or, to put it in golf terms, somebody likes every shot.

Let's look at an example from Asian golf. The caddies are women, old women. They are usually members of ethnic minorities relative to the place they are caddying. They are treated like dirt. Now, their degradation, I suppose, could be said to have a "negative social impact" on them. However, they derive utility from their remuneration and those who pay them derive utility from their service and its attendant trappings.

Women are disallowed on the courses, but the men are that much happier.

Gotta explain this one. Yeah, I am a free market guy.

Eldrick is still his legal first name

I find no evidence that he ever legally changed his first name to Tiger.

Rather, this USA Weekend article from last year quotes Tiger's agent as saying the switch was never seriously considered. And Tiger's website bio still uses Eldrick. The claims that he changed his name date back several years (do a Usenet search), so these more recent references make it clear to me that he's still Eldrick. So I've made the change. -jls 13 Mar 2005

NPOV issues?

Hi. I have found a few problems that could be considered POV in the article. It's nothing disproportionate, but I feel it could be corrected. The two examples I can quote come from consecutive paragraphs in the "Professional Career" segment. The first is: "The next phase of Woods career was relatively disappointing.", and the second: "Woods played well in the 2004 off-season (...)". The problem is we cannot say that he "played well", or "played badly" unless we are quoting someone else's statements, or else it's our opinion (more especifically, that of whoever it was who wrote that passage). Even if someone can come up with the stats to back it up, it is not for us to say if he played well or not. When I wrote a passage with similar statements (now completely erased from the article), I wrote that "according to the game's critics, Woods has been playing 'poorly' since (...)". That's what we have to do. He played well in the 2004 off-season according to {someone}, otherwise it's our opinion, which we cannot give in the article. So, as I see it, either someone provides a source for the statements that "the next phase of Woods' career was disappointing" and that "he played well in the 2004 off-season" or those passages will have to be removed. There may be other instances in the article with similar problems, I haven't read the whole thing yet. Regards, Redux 00:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a misapplication of NPOV. When we say, "he played well" or "he played poorly", we're talking about his tournament finishes, not whether he had his A-game. :) How about, instead, things like "in the next phase of Woods' career, he won fewer tournaments..." or something like that. DanKeshet 08:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I would be in favor of this slight rephrasing. If it's as you said, then indeed there's no NPOV issue. The problem would be that it isn't all that clear. When I read it, what came to mind was that the article was expressing an opinion (or giving an opinionated description of a moment in Woods' career). When you hear "he played well", it sounds more like an opinion about his game than an objective assessment of his results in that period of time. Regards, Redux 23:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic Background

Does anybody know which countries Tiger Woods's Black and Caucasian roots are in? I would assume that his black ancestry is from Africa (the specific African country isn't totally necessary, but it would be great for the article), but I don't know about his White roots. They could possibly be from most of the European countries, but can anybody tell me which specific country?

Thanks.

Leon. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Cypriot stud (talk • contribs) 11:33, November 24, 2005

All blacks roots are from Africa, directly or indirectly. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Golfcam (talk • contribs) 23:23, December 7, 2005

he is ⅛ dutch. --Colorfulharp233 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

All white roots are from Europe, directly or indirectly. All Asian roots are from Asia, directly or indirectly. But the real question is, where are his god roots from? I only ask because it seems the media has promoted him to being one step above mortal just because he's an astoundingly good golfer. He's good - but hey man, he ain't no Cassius Clay.

Controversies

Section seems disproportionately long and disorganized. We dont need to note every single thing that Tiger has been criticized for. Just the notable ones will do. Savidan 06:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Tiger-proofing" a golf course by adding length would affect his opponents disproportionately more than him, as he was at the time, one of the longest hitters on the tour, if not the longest. The people that said that at the time, notably Charles Barkley, don't understand the game. I think this language should be removed.--216.110.81.34 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Umm... Well his mother is from Thialand and that is in southeastern Asia Well if you look closely he has a lot of asian characteristics in his face so there you go.

rv Vandalism

Sorry, forgot to sign my name and what I reverted to. I reverted Carty215's ridiculous edits to 22:13, 22 February 2006 Daycd. My bad.Flibbert 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Legendary shots section

Anyone have a source for this? It may be a text dump, in which case it is unlikely to be updated. I'm inclining towards deleting it. Osomec 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the material in this section can be sourced from articles such as http://www.members.shaw.ca/tiger_woods/page2.html and http://www.travelandleisure.com/tlgolf/invoke.cfm?page=1&objectid=A5AEFD6E-B544-417D-AEDDDC172C1B1AF1. I know one of the rules is "when in doubt, don't delete". This section has been well-received over a period of weeks without objection, and will be improved over time. I think Mr. Woods's ability to hit these clutch and memorable shots is something unique in sports history and deserves special discussion as part of his biography.

People are entitled to delete any material they don't think is beneficial to wikipedia. What's the evidence that it has been well received? I'll have a look at those links and think about it so more. Osomec 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a {{pov-section}} tag to this, as it doesn't have any encyclopedic relevance and is 100% subjective. It belongs on ESPN.com or a sports blog, but not in a serious biography. I'd like to see this removed soon. Thanks. Harr o5 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When you think of Tiger, or you see any film or video biography of Tiger, you'll always encounter shots like the hole in one at the (then-) Phoenix Open, the chip-in in the '05 Masters, and so on, just as you'd think of Jack Nicklaus's one-iron at Pebble Beach. Maybe the list could be pared down, but then again maybe not. In any event I think it's perfectly appropriate. JMO. Joseph N Hall 07:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Athletes have their memorable moments, Tom Brady will be remembered for his game winning drive in Super bowl 36, Tiger will be remembered for that chip he had at last years masters, Doug Flutie will be remembered for his amazing pass to win the Rose bowl against Miami. Herb Brooks will be remembered for coaching the Miracle on Ice team, the list goes on and on. If you can cite sources that list these shots as memorable shots, and change the section title to memorable shots, then it wouldn't be POV. False Prophet 22:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the shots discussed earlier were from a show that aired on The Golf Channel titled "Tiger's 10 Greatest Shots." Essentially it allowed people to vote on Tiger's greatest shots over his career; the show aired before 2005, so his Masters chip in wasn't actually included. The only shot not mentioned in the article was a 200 yd 7 iron from deep deep rough, over a huge hill at the 2000 US Open (Pebble Beach), that ran onto the green, then two putts for birdie. unsigned post by User:66.162.176.102

I think this section is inherently POV. What is memorable to one person is not necessarily memorable to another. That is is sourced means nothing. The source could be, and at least in one main source for this section appears to be, a fan's site. That it is based in part on a television call in show reinforces this. The results of that show can be summarized in a short paragraph of two sentences. The gold standard we are looking for is neutrality in point of view. Fans' opinnions are not neutral points of view, even if they are documented in some web site somewhere. This article is extremely long and detailed covering many details of Woods's career. Select shots from these tournaments can be included in coverage of the notable tournament wins, rather than isolated in a list of this sort. Let's delete this. Crunch 12:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cry about it. These shots are part of what Tiger is known for. 74.132.136.242 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

May I refer you to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and to Neutral Point of View. I'm not disputing that Tiger is a notable golfer and notable golfers have notable shots, but these can be integrated into the description of his greatest tournament wins, rather than stated in a separate list somehow declared as definitive. And, while we're at it let's try to be civil in our communication. Crunch 15:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Great shots are facts, not opinions. Holing that chip on the 16th is a great shot. That's a fact. --FrasierC 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due resect, that's completely wrong. Words like "great" and "memorable" are points of view, not facts. I'm not sure which 16th in which round of which tournament you are referring to, but you could say, in your description of that tournament that he he holed a chip shot that contributed to a birdie or eagle or whatever and maybe give stats on how few other players have done that on that hole, but you really should understand the idea of Neutral Point of View when you write for Wikipedia. The Tiger Woods article is a full of blatant abuses of Point of View that are better suited for a fan site not an encyclopedia. Crunch 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I do understand the idea of NPOV. I don't really need a lecture on it. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean you have to assume I don't understand, or that I am somehow less knowledgable than you.

It is a fact to say that that chip was great. To say it is the "greatest" would be not be NPOV. Greatness in terms of getting it in the hole from off the green is a fact. That's a great golf shot. No one can argue with it. It's like saying a word like "popular" is not NPOV. It is, quite clearly; if Led Zeppelin sell 300 million albums then they are popular. That is a fact. And so is a great shot in golf. It is a fact that hitting it in off the green is a great shot, simply because it is hard to do. No one can contest that it is a great shot. It is thus undisputable. It is thus a fact. That's the thing about golf; you can say that if it goes in the hole from off the green it is almost always a great shot. It is factually a shot that is great, there is no way around it. There is no contesting its greatness. That is not a opinion. It's like saying popular is an opinion. In some cases great is not NPOV, for example, if I were to say "Led Zeppelin is a great band". That is not a fact. However this use of great is a factual one, because that is a great golf shot. Getting the ball in the hole from off the green is a great golf shot, namely a shot that is great. Possibly, even more NPOV would be to say "notable" golf shots. You could say that is an opinion also, but you would then have to deal with masses of Wikis that say about notable achievements etc. Memorable is possibly more POV.

'give stats on how few other players have done that on that hole' No one can do the same because the ball would have to land on the same spot in exactly the same position. It's an impossibility. It's not "few players", it's no players. --FrasierC 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree with FrasierC ... in sports, certain highlights are considered "great" as a matter of fact. Lorenzo Charles' slam dunk to win the 1983 NCAA basketball tournament for N.C. State is "great", no disputing it. Don Larsen's World Series perfect game is "great", no question. While most pro golfers will have a handful of "great" shots, this list seems to include a selection of notable ones, as well, i.e. those that had an impact on that tournament, or are so memorable and so outstanding as to garner a significant memory for those that watch golf and/or follow Tiger's career. TW does seem to have more than his fair share, though that's a purely anectdotal statement; perhaps it seems that way because of his greatness (hmmm, wondering if that is an acceptable use of the term?!?!). If we don't dispute that Tiger is "great" (appologies to Tony the Tiger, no pun intended), then is it not fair to establish that some shots are "great"? Great is a relative and subjective term, yes; however, there is also a general consensus and fairly-established criteria on what constitutes "great". Just as Tiger himself fits those criteria, so too do these shots.

Hello. The whole entire Memorable Shots section exists word for word at http://www.answers.com/topic/tiger-woods (scroll down about 3/4ths through the page to the section "Memorable Shots"). Was this scraped from Answers.com or vice versa? It seems this entry appeared on Wikipedia in February 2006? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but is either Wikipedia or Answers.com breaking the GFDL here? Jonathan Stokes 08:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I guess Answers.com & Wikipedia have a working relationship. I'm still confused. But I guess everything's kosher. Jonathan Stokes 08:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Gay Gophers

One of the last lines in Tiger's intro reads "prompting a major surge of interest in the game of golf among gay people and young people in the United States."

Gay people? I'm guessing this is a joke or vandalism, but I'll be respectful and say I'm not sure. I will remove this for two reasons: 1. Not verifiable - I've personally never heard anything like this before and I've played on junior tours across the country for many, many years. Tiger Woods is married to a female, therefore he is not gay - I'm not sure how he prompted a major surge of interest in golf for gay people. 2. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with golf or Tiger's career (correct me if I'm wrong). Even if this was true, it would be like mentioning 'Tiger has prompted a major surge of interest in the game of golf among Pro-Choice advocates.' (I'm not comparing pro-choice advocates to homosexuals, I'm simply comparing the relevancy of such a topic) Chupper 20:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's freaking vandalism. It should read "prompting a major surge of interest in the game of golf among minorities and young people in the United States." I have no idea when it was added, but I'll fix it if it's not already fixed. - Davis21Wylie 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in Pro Career Section

"and has been by far the highest-profile farter in the world ever since. On 15 June 1997 [4], Woods rose to a fart so stinky and loud that his caddy George Wutton got a concussion and is currently in the hospital for life the number one spot in the Official World fart Rankings for the first time"

What the heck? Someone needs to fix this

wow. lol.

Lots of Vandalism

Somebody changed it from saying he started playing golf at three years old to 4 months old. 4 months is obviously not right. No child can stand at less than 6 months.

Correction of picture caption

Correction of picture captionTiger wasn't wearing red on Sunday of the 2006 Open Championship. He was wearing pink, and has frequently worn pink instead of red in 2006 on Sundays.

No, he was wearing red.

Red, pink; same thing. Pink is a shade of red.

Long non-encylopedic article

This might be fruitless, but this article is extremely long, far longer than recommended by Wikipedia even for very notable individuals. I suggest removing some of the trivial details not necessary for an encyclopedia, for example, lists of who Woods's neighbors are, the date on which he was introduced to his wife and by whom, the very long list of memorable shots (of questionable neutral Point of View in any case). His career has at least 10 years remaining, let's pace ourselves! Seriously, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to put every little detail you happen to know about someone. It is also not a fan site to put things about an individuals favorite foods, all his famous friends, documented or not, and all the minutiae about his life. Let's EDIT! Crunch 12:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the list of memorable shots is too long, and I'm not sure that we need the "What's in the bag" bit, the content is currently under a {{pov-section}} tag which isn't appropriate. I'm removing the tag. PKT 14:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to the post "lots of vandalism"

The fact that woods started to play golf at 6 months is not a huge exaggeration...I read in a biography about him (a book, not internet) that he watched his father practice swinging in his garage, then one day he picked up a club at that age, and swung it, similar to how his father swung. He could barely walk, but managed to do that.

Results in majors (playoffs)

I'd prefer putting P1 instead of 1 for playoff wins. What do you think?

You could do that, I suppose but you'd have to do it for every golfer who won a major in a play off. :P

Seriously though, I abstain my vote. --FrasierC 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave it as a simple "1". If he won the tournament then he came 1st, simple as that. Some lists put a star or mark next to playoff wins, but like you say, it'd have to be changed to keep it consistent. A win is a win, and that means 1st place.

In the bag

This seems to have come from this website article: GolfOnline - Towering Figures shouldn't it be referenced? Michaelmcguire 10:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the information came from his website, www.tigerwoods.com. I added the reference as well as cleaned up the entry a bit. Aktornado 18:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Second or Third on "all time list

It is commonly accepted that Tiger Woods is currently tied for second on the all time majors list. Any reputable news agency or source has him listed as second. However one contributer here continues to change it to third based on his view that the U.S. Amateur and British Amateur opens were considered majors in the early days of U.S. golf. As such, in what should be considered a statistical list, he's including amateur wins for some golfers, but not others. While I can see his point of view, it's not something that is considered standard practice, as I have never seen it done like that before. Nor can I find any reference to a reputable source doing so. By only including the amatuer wins for Bobby Jones and other golfers in his era, but not for the more recent golfers such as Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus, Tiger is bumped down to third. This is confusing, and generally considered innacurate, and as such I have changed it back to what is considered the standard list. If anyone else wishes to contribute to this discussion, please do so here: talk:Golfers_with_most_major_championship_wins --Aktornado 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the link to the disputed article and provided a source for the information provided. The information provided is indisputable, and at this point I feel any changes would be considered vandalism. Aktornado 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have provided an explanatory, well-sourced footnote that accurately describes the situation--a full explanation as is now provided (which cannot neatly fit into the opening paragraph) provides precision, which was lacking in the original brief description Stanley011 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Your footnote states "it is generally recognized that Bobby Jones won 13 majors 5, that Nicklaus won 18 majors 6, and that Woods has won 11 majors". As requested in the other discussion, I'd like you to provide one source that lists this. It is not "generally" recognized in this fashion, that is flat out false. You have yet to provide a single source that acredits Jones with 13 majors, Nicklaus with 18 and Woods with 11. This is a direct quote from the PGA TOUR, "Earl Woods would have been enormously proud of his son Sunday as he won his third Open Championship and 11th major title. He’s tied with Walter Hagen now, and only Jack Nicklaus, the man whose records Woods covets, has more with 18." found here: http://www.golfweb.com/tournaments/britishopen/story/9568293 Aktornado 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I listed three sources that have identified each player with the number of majors that I specified--you inexplicably removed these sources. I refer you to your own definition of vandalism that you provided on your talk page, namely as "the complete removal of cited information, simply because you disagree with it." Stanley011 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An explination of your opinion is not a "cite". And listing three different sources in three different contexts to arrive at one conclusion is not good form. You have still not given a single article that suggests Tiger Woods is third behind Jones and Nicklaus. Aktornado 15:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is just one article (from the Detroit News) that states directly that Tiger is third behind Jones and Nicklaus, as you requested [1].

Right now, this is how I see it breaking down:

Tiger Woods has won 11 professional majors. - Undisputed
Walter Hagen won 11 professional majors. - Undisputed
Bobby Jones won 7 professional majors. - Undisputed
Bobby Jones won 6 amatuer majors. - Undisputed
Bobby Jones won 13 majors. - Disputed
Tiger Woods is tied with Walter Hagen for 2nd in all-time professional major wins. - Undisputed
Tiger Woods is tied with Walter Hagen for 2nd in all-time major wins. - Disputed

Given the above, why don't we state "Tiger Woods is tied with Walter Hagen for 2nd in all-time professional major wins." and leave it at that. The article Golfers with the greatest number of major championship wins already goes into detail on the amateur open matter; there's no need to drag it into this article. Aren't I Obscure? 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me Aktornado 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of contention seems to be the following: whether it is standard practice to include (or suggest) a list that lists players by both the amateur and professional majors they have won/only the professional majors they have won or whether it is standard to practice to include (or suggest) a list that includes amateur wins for some players (such as Jones and the other real old-timers) as majors, and not others. I contend that the latter is a widely-used practice, as the sources that I have posted in this and other discussion forums demonstrate [[2]] (The Detroit News), and [[3]] (First Tee--which the PGA sponsors). There are many others, which a google search will reveal. The former method is of couse also a widely-used one which is why I created a footnote that attempts to explain these two different practices. To answer a question that Aktornado raised in a different forum: I don't know if there is a biblical date that we can point to stating that this is the year when the amateurs were no longer considered majors--but I don't believe that is necessary because I do know that there are many reputable sources that indicate that in Jones's era, the amateurs were considered majors and they are not considered majors in Nicklaus's and Woods's era. As we are discussing top players on an all-time list, upon which Woods’s position and Jones’s position are given different places by the two different but widely-used standards, the specific year is irrelevant because the sources indicate that it was after Jones had retired and before Nicklaus played. To answer Aren't I Obscure?'s question: The reason we cannot simply include, in the opening paragraph, that Woods is “second” on a list is because it gives undue preference to one method over another. My proposal is that we leave it off the opening and explain this whole matter in the footnote. Stanley011 17:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I appologize for forgetting to sign my comment above. Stanley011 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

How is it that The Detroit News and First Tee demonstrate "wide use", but CNN[4], Fox Sports[5], ESPN[6], and pgatour.com[7] do not? Aktornado 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You have obviously misread my post. I did not say that the list you propose to use solo in the article is not in wide-use. I said both are in wide-use, and the sources I provided are just two of numerous sources that appear in a google search--those, in conjunction with the articles I cited previously citing Jones with 13 majors and Nicklaus with 18, show that the list I mentioned in the footnote is also in wide-use. Stanley011 18:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

I did misread your post, my appologies. However I still don't believe the current iteration of this article is very good. That footnote is too lenghthy, and really the opening paragraph isn't very good to begin with. I think I see where we can reach common ground here, so I'm going to rewrite it, and I think you'll be satisfied with the result. I'll post it here before going live with it.Aktornado 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing in before commenting. Catch the feature box on this page at ESPN http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2555909 - again, as has been said, sports authorities continue to consider Woods "alone in 2nd" for pro wins. To count amateur wins that "may have been considered majors" at some point in distant history seems a tad unfair to any golfer who in the modern era won amateur "majors" for which they are not getting credit. To keep things even, it seems correct to proceed with Tiger's 12 putting him in 2nd. This is no discredit to Walter Hagen and all he did. Hagen is still on a list that includes no currently active golfers except Tiger. And given Tiger's achievements to-date and forecast for ultimate milestones, Hagen's record is nothing to be ashamed about. Tiger's passing him is credit to him - it would take "the greatest" (Jack and Tiger in one sentence) to pass Hagen. Nothing wrong with that. My vote, Tiger is alone in 2nd with 12 major wins, and will continue to be alone in 2nd until he passes Jack.

All of them should be included, since at that time period they were in fact "majors". Mark it with an asterick or at least mention those coming from amateur titles, though.Ernham 11:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

This article is pretty nice, first off. But to be a "good article," it just needs some good-old-fashoined cleanup. There are "citation needed" tags, mistake formatting, headings with only one paragraph, headings with incorrect formatting (all caps or punctuation). These things will definitely need to be addressed first. Also, for the legnth of hte article, the references are a bit light. Since the footnote method is being used, the inline website citations (that look like this --> [www.google.com]) need to be converted to <ref> citation. It is more fair to the original works anyway. Also, there are whole subheadings that don't have a single inline reference of any kind. I would address these issues pronto, as the content is good article quality.--Esprit15d 17:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Frank

Shouldn't somebody mention Frank, Tiger's club cover? Not only is it a part of Tiger's game, but a few years ago there were several Nike Golf commercials with Frank "giving golf advice" to Tiger. --Kitch 11:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Assumptions

DO NOT assume that Tiger Woods has won the PGA Championship in 2006 by listing it here - until it is official it cannot be posted here as an official win - very sad. The person who wrote that in should be reported, as Tiger has NOT won the 2006 PGA Championship - it is still being played, geniuses.

I totally agree. I was watching the 2006 PGA Championship live on CBS and before it was finished and official, Tiger was getting credit for the win. This is very sad. I had to go and change it back two or three times. For instance, Tiger had a five stroke lead with a five-inch put left to make on the 18th green and some contributors were presuming he would win. VERY PRESUMPTUOUS!!! What if he had been struck by lightning or had a heart attack? But in all seriousness, these articles should not be predicting the future, however sure it might be.

Do not assume he has won Player of the Year. He has not, those results will come in November, and are voted by his peers. We also know matthematically that he has won the Mark H. McCormack award for the ninth straight year, but we will not post it until it is awarded - next March.

Yeah. It is fact that when Tiger's in the lead at the Majors going into the final round he has won. :P

And yeah, in all seriousness, obviously Wikipedia isn't for predictions.

--FrasierC 00:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tiger-Proofing

I am going to add a "citation needed" to the sentence in the criticisms section about tiger-proofing being seen as racist. Right now it has (if you'll forgive the term) "weasel words." It's not clear who the "many" who viewed tiger-proofing as thinly-veiled racism were (e.g. many journalists, many golfers, etc.) I don't remember a great outcry about it being racist, so I'm just not sure that this is true. If someone has a citation - great.

I am also thinking of taking the part about Augusta National out, both because I don't think it's entirely accurate to call Augusta, Georgia the "deep south" and because I'm not sure that I remember Augusta National being singled out for particular criticism.

Also, I don't know that it's clear that there was ever a comparable era of dominance by a player, or that lengthening courses would have affected one if there was. (Lengthening a course would not have made Nicklaus less dominant - I don't think he hit it all that much further than anyone else. Making him putt with a salad fork *might* have helped.) Also, I think we need a citation for the statement that no course had ever been changed in response to a player's dominance - it may be true, but I wouldn't be that surprised to find out that Augusta National, for example, was designed to give Bobby J. a bit of a challenge. --TheOtherBob 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove that secion of the article, I think they're quite obviously weasel words, and I don't think it's much of an issue today.Aktornado 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Tiger-proofing in regards to woods is total non-sense. In fact, That would actually help Tiger more than hinder him compared to the majority of the field, save for maybe a small handful of others better on the fairways. Ernham 04:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can a single person be "multiracial"?

That's an interesting use of the word, one that I have never heard before.Leeborkman 01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Common in the United States, I believe. Anyway, I've noticed something odd here - his mother's racial makeup is discussed, but not his father's - and then the article goes straight into listing Tiger's racial mix. One can deduce his father's from that, of course, or by visiting his article, but it reads rather oddly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It used to be in the article, but was deleted by 70.26.223.50 and not re-inserted until now. 15:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA nom

I have passed the nomination for Tiger Woods to be a good article. It's really a great, extensive resource. Keep up the good work! - Mike 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

British Open vs. The Open Championship

Regarding this statement: "Tiger Woods and Lee Trevino have been the only two player to have captured the three major opens (U.S., British, and Canadian) in one year: Trevino in 1971 and Woods in 2000". Does it belong here, and in this form? The Canadian Open isn't a Major, and 'British Open' is a colloquialism. (Lidz 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

I notice my changes to replace British Open with The Open Championship in this article have been reverted; however, there are numerous references to The Open Championship still in the article, so it's inconsistent.

The reason given for the reversion is that Tiger Woods is an American golfer; I consider this irrelevant - This is not an American-centric website, and the event's formal name is The Open Championship. It should be referred to by this name. Lidz 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at American/British Style of writing you'll see that it's recommended that when there is a difference in writing style, preference should be given to the style that is most suited to the article in question. As Tiger Woods is an American golfer, it simply makes sense to use what is most often used in America for this particular article. When discussing a British golfer, such as Colin Montgomerie, I think it would make sense to use The Open Championship. As you can see in his article, that's what is done. While if you look at John Daly or Jack Nicklaus British Open is the term used. I think it only makes sense to be consistent with this policy.Aktornado 15:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the use of "British Open" is perfectly appropriate. "Open Championship" is the name of the tournament, but it is not the most widely used name outside of the tournament and the UK. Were this an article about the Open Championship, then the term "Open Championship" would be appropriate. Most readers, however, are going to find the term ambiguous out of that context, and frankly "US Open" and "British Open" look well balanced in a list. Joseph N Hall 10:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Finger Taping

I've removed the sentence about Tiger taping his fingers on Sunday of a final round for "non-medical" reasons, because that is untrue, and because such a use is a violation of the rules of golf, or at the least questionable if done for purely ornamental purposes. From the 2006 Decisions on the Rules of Golf:

Q. May a player bind certain fingers together with adhesive tape or apply such tape to a golf glove?

A. The use of adhesive tape for any medical reason, e.g., to reduce blisters or to eliminate the possibility of skin splits between the fingers, is not contrary to the Rules. However, if a player binds fingers together with tape solely to aid himself in gripping the club, he is in breach of Rule 14-3. Applying tape to a golf glove to prevent the glove from slipping or to reduce wear is not a breach of Rule 14-3.

The usual reason that a player tapes one or more of the joints of his fingers (the right, ungloved hand for right-handed players) is to reduce the formation of excess callus on the fingers and/or to prevent the calluses from blistering or peeling in humid weather. Joseph N Hall 09:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In his monthly newsletter of Septermber 2006 TIger answers that question once and for all:

People have asked why I tape the middle finger of my right hand when I play. I’ve got a callous that’s unreal.
During the summer in the hot, humid weather, it just tears apart when I practice, so I tape it.

-- Metallion 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Salary

Tiger Woods is NOT the highest paid athlete in the world-- Micheal Schumacher is. According to F1 Racing Mag in July 2006, it said he earns well over $100 Million. This number can also be found on formula1.com

User:PublicSecrecy 6:03 AM, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide evididence to refute the sources that have already been given, please feel free to update it. However I think it's important to only use historical data (in other words, 2005 income as opposed to projected 2006, or future, income)

For a better article regarding Forbes findings see: The world's best-paid athletes ~~Aktornado 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's from the official f-1 site. Your info on Woods is from a 3rd party not at all linked to golf or Tiger. Plus, that's 2005, this may be from 2006. Ernham 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dublin Newspaper

Personaly, I don't feel this incident is noteworthy enough to be included in the article. Anyone opposed to removing it? Aktornado 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Practice

Shouldn't you add something about Tiger's practice routine, hardwork and dedication to become the 'Tiger"? He is an icon of professionalism and success. His dedication can be worthy for the learners. imroz=

A 60 minutes interview with him said that he practices about 9 hours a day.Ernham 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

British Open

I noticed that this article uses the term British Open to refer to The Open Championship throughout the article. Don't worry. I'm not an anal retentive who insists that anything other that 'The Open Championship' is wrong and will suffer the wrath of the British Empire. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! Sorry, got carried away. However the article never mentions the name Open Championship. This is likely to perpetuate the myth that the tournement is officially named the 'British Open' as opposed to being a coquoilism.

I have two requests that you can deal with seperately. Firstly, the first mention of the the open to be changed to read The Open Championship (British Open), simply to inform an unknowing reader of its official name. The second request is for tables and the infobox to refer to it as The Open Championship. The reason for this is that while coquial names are fine in normal text. When it comes to tables you don't refer to the Chicago Cubs as The Cubies in a table of World Series Winners.

FYI. I've just added an optional rydercupapp field in the infobox. You can use this to add the number of ryder cup appearances that Mr Woods has made. josh (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wins

For people who come to wikipedia for a quick snapshot of the golfer, do you think that there should be the number in parenthesis next to the category like "PGA Tour Wins (53)," so that people can quickly see how many wins he has without looking at the messy profile section? And next to "Other" Make it "Other (18)" so that people can quickly see how many wins he has. Do you think this would make it easier to read, because otherwise people see the section labeled "PGA Tour Wins" and only the number next to each year - perhaps we should add the number next to the title. What do you think?

Money

We don't need to say that he's the second highest paid athlete, because that looks dumb as the second sentence of an encyclopedia entry. One of the highest paid makes him look better. And if the former is true, post a link.

As I pointed out earlier, the sourced info states him as being the highest paid golfer, not second highest, or one of the highest. So I revised it back to what the sourced information says. Aktornado 14:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

College

Woods never graduated from college. He attended Stanford for only two years and then forsook further education (much to his father's chgrin, by the way). The info box on the right-hand side lists Stanford under College, and the formatting falsely leads the reader to believe that he completed his education.DocEss 20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make it a little more accurate, but the template is acting weird. Not sure how to fix it. Ernham 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Career section/profile needs some work

There should be the number of wins he has had for both major and non majors since turning pro, as well as how many he played in, both seperately.

There were several articles written in 1996 – 1997 saying that Tiger was going to win everything, and people were only going to be playing for second. The reason there weren’t links there before was because this is so obvious, and we can’t provide links for every single obvious word written on the page. If you knew what went on during “Tigermania” you would be aware of this. People were going nuts thinking he’d win everything. But since you wanted sources, and I put them there. The “from then on” refers to after the 1997 Masters. Common sense. You added “one of” in the sentence: “beginning of perhaps ‘one of’ the greatest sustained period of dominance in the history of men's golf.” “perhaps” and “one of” are both qualifying statements that undermine his achievements. Only one is necessary. --Supertigerman

Sorry, this isn't a Tiger Woods fan site. Get the speculation and editorlizing nonsense out, or I take it out. Being living persons biography, anything less is slander/vandalismErnham 22:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

also, make your changes more piecemeal and make sure they actually substantiate what you claim they do. Ernham 22:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I think listing all the wins in the profile template should be done away with and numerical "PGA events played in, PGA events won, Majors played in; majors won". Mainly because the wins are so well documented towards in the article already. Usually the profiles do not have stats setup like that.Ernham 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to argue with a Tiger-hater right now, I'll show you why my sources were correct tomorrow. Please not that I didn't spend all that time searching for sites to back up what I said for nothing. Look at those sites again. By the way, you still have some spelling errors. We don't need you messing up his page. Look at how unorganized it currently looks. At the very least, make some readable paragraphs out of your edits.

You need to learn how to write encyclopedic. Do not speculate. Also, SHOW/demonstrate things. Do not just spin things to sound good. If Tiger had a dominant spell, then explain what he did exactly without dressing it up with "greatest" rhetoric. My favorite was where it said "perhaps the greatest ever period of dominance" and then in the same breath say "[that same kind of dominance]... is something that hasn't been rivaled in decades". well, it's obviously not "perhaps" the greastest, then, it's "one of the greatest", if that. And the reality is, if it truly was so great, you don't even need to dress it up as such. And if you are shedding tears over what I did already, wait 'till I get to the rest of the article. Ernham 04:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

From 1999-2002, it was "perhaps the greatest ever period of dominance" AND "something that hasn't been rivaled in decades". In other words, it was not only "one of the best" but also "perhaps the greatest ever". They can co-exist.

And your last line is rather rude, as it implies that you intend to downplay all of his achievements.

The citing needs major, major work

Almost nothing is cited in this wiki. And since many of comments involve living persons, it is vital that they are given.

I added quite a few. --Supertigerman

Glitch in infobox

A compugeek is needed to fix a glitch in the infobox, the link to Stanford University which for some reason displays a couple of [[. Beats me, and others who have tried to rectify it, but I'M not very wiki-progamming savvy. Moriori 19:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Stanley011 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, yes. But now inaccurate. Please read comment "College" above.DocEss 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vandal bot badly needed for this page

Some idiot/s hiding behind IP addresses keep inserting the line "Woods also served as a House of Representatives page" or some variation of that. Is there some way we can get a vandal bot to automatically revert whenever the words "page" or "House of Reps" is used in this article so that good faith editors don't have to keep doing it? Thanks. Stanley011 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: no, the antivandal bot is fairly stupid (unexplained deletions, insertion of expletives on a list, I think, and isn't page-specific in any way). What can be done is to restrict editing of the page to only registed users. My sense is that you need a lot of attacks (certainly more than a half-dozen a day) to convince an admin to set up semi-protection, and it's usely only for a day or two, but I could be wrong - in any case, here's the policy: Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. John Broughton | Talk 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Jones

I did clarify the sentence, so it now reads "the only player ever to win multiple professional majors in consecutive years. There is no debate that in Jones's day, he won amateur titles, which were later made into professional. There is debate about whether or not we should include those in the "majors" category. Given that the links I posted about Tiger Woods being the only man to do so are directly from official golf websites (golflinks and pgatour.com), it is clear that the common perception is that he is the only man to do so. Yes, true Jones did it with amateur and professional titles, but Woods is the only man to do it with professional titles, so there is no need to include Jones. Supertigerman 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a need to because without this explanation, it gives readers the false impression that amateur majors were not considered majors in Jones's day. Thus the only accurate way to frame the sentence would be to leave the line about Woods being the only player to win professional majors, and then also noting that Jones did it with amateurs and professionals because, as I and others have explained numerous times before, Jones only had 4 majors in which he could possibly have competed. All of my assertions are well-sourced (Washington Post, GolfOnline, etc.) and thus are appropriate and indeed necessary for any sort of precision to be achieved. Stanley011 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And I should remind you that you did NOT "clarify the sentence" with "professional majors." I did that--it's only fair to give credit where credit is due. Stanley011 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did write that, I kept it in for clarification. The huge debate about Jones's winning the Grand Slam is on the page about most major championships. They had a long debate, but concluded that since news sources today talk about the modern professional majors, and not that one with amateur and professional titles, it is what we go by. They concluded that since pgatour.com consistently says that Tiger is 2nd behind only Nicklaus, and not Jones, it refers to the modern definition, which is tougher to achieve. Amateur majors were considered majors, but not professional majors. Therefore, Tiger is the only man to do it by winning professional majors. In any case, you have to admit that given increased length of courses, more players, and much tougher field strength today, Tiger's achievement is more impressive. When I say that Tiger is the only man to win multiple professional majors in consecutive seasons, that does not imply that amateur majors were not considered majors. I am only talking about professional majors. And given that pgatour.com and golfonline say that he is the only one to do it without even mentioning Bobby Jones (see link 19) there isn't a need to mention him. Supertigerman 00:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Stanley is undeniably correct. Unequivocally, Jones won the Grand Salm, and he's the only one to have done so. Plus, he was educated..DocEss 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jones won the former version of the Grand Slam, in which the only tournaments he could have won were 2 professional majors and 2 amateur majors. No one has won all 4 professional majors in 1 season.Supertigerman 00:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the achivement is no "tougher" today than it was in Jones's day when the equipment was far most primitive which meant that the guys actually had to have genuine talent rather than just bombing it down the fairway. But that's for another debate. What's relevant here is the following: notice how I did not remove the line about Tiger winning professional majors--I left that in tact and do not dispute your citations. I simply added a relevant historical detail so that viewers can gain an idea of the context of that achivement in golf history. My belief is that an encylopedia article, unlike a PGA Tour or ESPN article, should strive to present the greatest historical context of such achivements as possible, provided that they are well-sourced. I have done exactly that here. Stanley011 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for not being a neurotic, dogmatic wikipedia nutcase, and for actually making solid points. However, including Bobby Jones in this one instance is strange because now you'd have to go to every part of every article that talks about the grand slam, or other achievements that have to do with the amateur + professional era, and that's a) not feasible and b)silly because it would simply mar the appreciation for the achievements of others by stating the Jones's accomplishments after every one of those. So my question is, why don't we not include it here, given the statement using the word "professional" is correct? I realize for the sake of historical accuracy and such, but then why not include this at the bottom of the page with the footnote instead? Supertigerman 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for recognizing that I'm not a "wikipedia nutcase" (though I do try to abide by wikipedia policy as much as possible, and from what I can tell, you do as well) but I do dispute your above points. First, it absolutely is feasible, and indeed quite easy, to go to every part of every article that talks about the majors and add relevant modifications to achieve the greatest context possible--wikipedia has a limited number of golf articles and takes on far greater tasks than this. In fact, I would like to do just that, and just chose this article as a start. And as far as maring other players' achievements, I completely disagree. How does it in any way take away from the fact that Tiger won multiple professional majors in consecutive years by reading the line about Jones? If anything, I think it adds to the appreciation of Tiger's feat because it shows how far back one must go to even detect a somewhat similar achievement, giving the average reader a wider appreciation for the historical context of Tiger's achivement. I do not believe this context should be marginilized to the bottom of the page when it directly relates to the issue at hand. Stanley011 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cluttering up several pages by referring to other golfers and their similar accomplishments will take away from the goal of the statement, I'm afraid. I don't think we should go to every golf page and say "Bobby Jones did the 'grand slam'" and have a bunch of asterisks and explanations for it. Since what he has done is not related to the modern definition, and since mainstream sources do not even mention him, I don't feel that it merits prime importance. This is not to say that what he did was also an accomplishment, but an accomplishment of a different kind which should not be directly compared to modern-day definitions. Hence, in the major golf championships page, they split it up into 1) modern-day and most widely recognized statistic and then later on (due to its lesser significance and lack of widespread acceptance) 2) combination of the amateur/professional merged with just the professional. My point is that adding extra information about "similar achievements" back in the day will only clutter up pages with unnecessary information and detract from the main point. We follow up one line with one line about Jones -- that's distracting especially since Jones has not done the same thing. Why not leave it as "only one to win multiple professional..." since that much is completely true, and not get bogged down in details and explain to the readers why we must include the word "professional"?Supertigerman 06:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can always remove the entire psuedo-statistic. Sounds like you don't think it's "fair" to count amatuers as majors; I'm sure jones doesn't think it fair he is being compared to someone that got to play in twice as many "real" majors per year than he didErnham 11:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Jones is bones! He is long passed-on. Win four majors of whatever ilk in one year and you win the Grand Slam. So far it is Jones and Jones alone who has done so. Plus, he was educated. DocEss 19:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Awards

He's won some awards/majors in consecutive years, so should we shorten those parts with hyphens? I think it will make it look concise and more readable. For example, he's won the McCormack award every year, so it would read "1998 - 2006" instead of listing each year. It just doesn't look neat at the moment.Supertigerman 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the info box needs some major work Aktornado 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea it seems too unorganized. What do you suggest? Take a look at what I wrote above entitled "Wins."Supertigerman 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the years from showing all 4 digits to showing 2. My goal was to have clear-cut neat 1-liners. If this appears ugly or incomplete, just give a reason and change it back. I was thinking maybe we could have 2 digits for the parts that are squished (ie Masters), and show all 4 for others (ie US Open, because we can fit all 4 digits in one line). Would that be better? Perhaps we could combine years like I wrote above with a hyphen, and not list them all. Notice I did this only for lines which required it, ie lines in which showing all years with 2 digits would not fit in one line. This would certainly be neater, but some may think that it's bad. If you feel this is inconsistent (and that all need to have hyphens or no hyphens at all), please explain why and change it accordingly. I also made an extra line for the "professional wins" part, which I thought looked more readable. Also, for the "No. 1 PGA Tour Money List," I put the years on the line below it, but could not figure out how to indent those years. Can someone more wiki-savvy do that? I realize that whatever changes we make here will have to be replicated in all other golfers pages. No problem, with your help, we can do that -- let's just make sure we're positive on how we want to format it. If you think I really messed up, please improve it. Supertigerman 23:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Moriori: Right now it looks sloppy with all the parentheses -- can you improve it instead of reverting?Supertigerman 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Stronger Fields than Nelson's Day

ESPN golf: Woods himself says "In this day and age, with this competition, to win 11 in a row would be almost unheard of." "The rampant Woods, who has won against much better fields in terms of strength in depth..." I quote: "The competition is so much deeper now," he said. "Back in his day, and I actually talked to him about this, he said he had to beat four or five guys every week. When you’re hot, that’s not that hard to do. That’s not the case anymore. It’s 40 or 50 now, so it’s a lot different." Even in Jack Nicklaus's day, there were 40 club pros at the PGA, and about 70 at the Masters. Nowadays that number is closer to ninety. The PGA has 140 people or so who could win and the two Opens have about 130 of the top players. Fields today have more people - people who are stronger, as the lengths of courses have increased. This is slightly offset by better equipment, but people work out more, and as the sport has evolved, it has come to require a certain degree of athleticism. Supertigerman 15:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut Streak

I took out "commentators" because not only commentators, but many others consider it to be an amazing feat. I quote Allenby: ``It was always going to come to an end eventually, wasn't it? Robert Allenby said. ``Obviously, it was a hell of a feat. That record will never be broken. GolfDigest called it "a streak for the ages." Golf Magazine said "it exemplified his endurance throughout his PGA Tour career..." Given the tremendous amount of publicity and plethora of articles and news reports about it (it was on the front page of Yahoo!'s Associated Press top stories that day), and since it had worldwide impact (note 1 source is from India!) it is clear that many consider it to be one of the greatest golf achievements of all time. Supertigerman 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Stanley011, you often commented on the modern definition of the cut, versus the cut in Nelson's day: Both in Nelson's day and today, the cut is defined as receiving a paycheck - not as qualifying for the final 36 holes. Tiger qualified for the final round of the 1998 AT&T Pebble Beach tournament, but withdrew. This was counted as a missed cut even though he was eligible to finish the tournament because he did not receive his paycheck. Evidence for this is in a source which you posted in the article: "The PGA Tour instituted a policy whereby a player must receive a check to make the cut.” (http://www.golftodaymagazine.com/0507Jul/tigercut.htm) In Nelson's day, the cut was not defined as the top-20 finishers, rather, approximately the top-20 finishers were the only ones who received money (keep in mind purses then were much smaller). The source says that "at least ten", not "although ten" of the tournaments in which Nelson competed did not have cuts. You rephrased it in a way that went in Nelson's favor. Evidence: You emphatically say that Tiger participated in 31 no-cut events, but include the "although" when I mention that at least ten of Nelson's events also had no cut. Supertigerman 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)]

In the first sentence you write: "Both in Nelson's day and today, the cut is defined as receiving a paycheck - not as qualifying for the final 36 holes." I couldn't agree with you more. But then further down you write: "In Nelson's day, the cut was not defined as the top-20 finishers, rather, approximately the top-20 finishers were the only ones who received money" So if the cut is only defined as receiving money, as you correctly noted in the first sentence, then how is it that the top-20 finishers were not the only ones to "make the cut?" My point is the following: although the cut in both eras was defined as receiving a paycheck, in Nelson's day, only the top 20 received a paycheck, regardless of whether there was 36 hole elimination. All of the tournaments in Nelson's day, with the exception of the Masters, PGA, and the 3 other obscure tournaments, had 36 hole elimination--but these were not "cuts" because a player who qualified to play past 36 holes was not guaranteed to win a paycheck. In the ten, or I will grant you, 13 "no-cut" tournaments in which Nelson competed, it was still the case that only the top 20 received paychecks, as the pgatour.com article, and your correct assertion that the purses were much smaller in Nelson's era, make clear. Hence these tournaments were not really "no cut events"--it's just that they did not have 36 hole elimination. The "cut" in these events was rather everyone outside the top 20. Contrast that to the 31 "no cut" events in which Woods played--all the players received a paycheck, regardless of whether they placed in the top 20. In all the tournaments in which Nelson competed, minus the 13 "no cut" ones, not only did a player have to qualify to play past 36 holes, but then from there, the player had to still place in the top 20 to receive a paycheck. So in these tournaments, there were "2 cuts", as it were, that a player had to make to qualify to receive a paycheck, and hence make the cut. Stanley011 03:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that approximately the top 20 received paychecks because that's all the money they had. It could have been 19 or 21 in some tournaments. My point is that it's not strictly the top 20, but some number around that which is dependent upon the purse.

I think this is what you're saying:

In Nelson's day, when there was no "cut" in stroke play events ie the Masters, he still had to be in the top 20 to get money. In the match play events, ie Miami Fourball and PGA Championships, he didn't have to work to get money because even if he was last, he'd still get paid.

In Tiger's day, when he has no "cut", he doesn't have to work at all to get paid. He can finish last and still get some money.

I agree.

Bottom line: Nelson played in 5 Masters during his streak. Therefore, adding those to the 103 or less, it's 108 or less.

Yes? Supertigerman 03:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Stanley011 03:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the tenure of this discussion. Help me? Super, are you saying that we should alter some definitions so that Woods receives more favourable treatment from history? Concurrently, are you saying we should alter some definitions so that Nelson's acheivements are diminished? In short, should we just have a policy of revising a whole bunch of things so that Woods always looks better?DocEss 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Given Stanley agreed, no. I do not alter any definitions. Supertigerman 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Who is your favourite golfer, Super?DocEss 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tries to 13 total majors

Look at the Results table. He turned 30 on December 30, 2005. At the British Open in 2005, he achieved his 13th total major. Notice the summary of performances says "46 starts" until now. That includes the 2005 PGA and the 4 majors from 2006. Therefore, 46-5 = 41. Supertigerman 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong the first time--thank you for making me aware of that. It's actually 47, not 46 as I originally wrote. Your'e neglecting the fact that he competed in the US Amateur in 1991-1996. Those of course have to be added to the denominator, if you're adding those wins to the numerator do they not? That means 41+6=47 for a grand total of 26.67%. I will make the changes now. Stanley011 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh. My bad. Supertigerman 04:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're both bad. In one paragraph in the Article (and in discussion above on this page) you diminish Jones' unparalelled accompplishment by claiming that Jones won "...at a time when the US Amateur was considered a major." Then, in a nearby sentence you claim Woods won 13 majors by the time he was 30 when we include the three US Amateur titles. Ya can't have it both ways: you argue above that Jones' Grand Slam somehow doesn't really count becasue two of the Championships available at the time were national amateur events and then you turn around and deify Woods for winning amateur events to bolster your invented 13-by-30 statistic. Please explain what looks like neglect, convenient truth stretching or outright bias.DocEss 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)PS On top of that, you fail to mention that Jones was fully educated while winning the Grand Slam.

You obviously know nothing of the difference between professional majors and majors including amateur wins. To see the difference, go to the talk page of Golfers with most wins in men's major championships. As for the "deify" comment, no, we recite the facts. Do not come here and chastise us for our contributions because it is people like Stanley011 and me who make Wikipedia a better place. We dedicate time to editing, talk in a civilized manner when we disagree, and we compromise. Supertigerman 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know more than you assume, so be cautious in your tone. Anyway, look at this page, majors, and recite the facts that are there regarding majors. Also, please explain what I asked you to explain: how can you use amateurs-as-majors to make Woods look good and in the same breath use ameteurs-as-majors to make Jones look bad? It's one way or the other! Agian, please explain what looks like neglect, convenient truth stretching or outright bias. DocEss 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

May I advise DocEss to cool down a bit, and assume good faith? Much more is accomplished when being civil to your fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes,dear. I did assume good faith; then, I also see that these two editors are displaying a bias in their writings and I wonder whether their bias is perhaps an oversight. And I am cool - I would like a proper, logical concise and well-rreasoned response to my queery.DocEss 16:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc--how is it that I am being biased? How is it that noting that Jones won "at a time when the amateurs were regarded as majors" diminishes his achivement? It's simply clarifying what could be a confusing situation for the modern golf fan not aware of the fact that the amateurs were once regarded as majors. Of course Jones won a true grand slam--but a true grand slam at his time happened to have included two amateur tournaments and it in no way displays bias against him/for Tiger to state that fact. Prior to the introduction of the winning statistics, which I added, it was biased to state the amateur+professional majors count for Woods before 30, and then compare that to Jones's thirteen majors before 30, because that's giving Tiger, who had five tournaments in which to compete, an unfair advantage over Jones, who had four to pull off the same feat. But I think this problem was solved by noting the winning percentages--they eliminate the bias that was previously reflected in this portion. Do you agree? Stanley011 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this response adequately covers it. First, you commented in the past on Jones's accomplishment in a discrediting way, with "ya but...amateurs-as-majors" kinda tone. Jones' accomplishment was an astoundingly difficult feat and nobody else has ever acheived it. He won all four majors in a season, not just at a time. No one else has done so and trying to bend facts & force statistics around Wood's "almost" is offensive to Jones (and me as a golf fanatic and a truth fan!). Second, Jones won everything he could have before 30, including those 13 majors --- and they were majors, majors by any definition. Woods did not win 13 majors by the time he was 30. [I do note that those 3 US Amateurs and the 3 Jr. US Amateurs (that makes 6) is also an astoundingly difficult and eminently admirable accomplishment. And, by the way, I watched them all, gawking in awe.] Too bad those 6 don't count as majors, though. Third, adding the winning percentage doesn't get you off the biased hook --- it's certainly neat-o math, but it doesn't turn Woods' 10-by-30 into 13-by-30. And lastly, I suggest (without meaning to offend) that your passions for one of the world's greatest-ever athletes might be controlled in Wiki world by tempering the awe with an insatiable hunger for accuracy. But please don't stop writing - you're doin a great job.DocEss 21:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

Discuss the article, not the subject;
Discuss the edit, not the editor;
Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Open Obsession

I see people have been intent on making every "British Open" into "The Open". First of all, the official name of that tournament is "The Open Championship". Calling it "The Open" is like calling the "PGA Championship" just "PGA". Also, many non-golfers do not know about this distinction, and many in the U.S. know it as the British Open. How can this be clarified, since now there are two "Open"s? Supertigerman 01:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's bollocks. Not only in the US is it known as the British Open, but elsewhere as well. There was a story about Wikipedia in our local paper today. One paragraph said - "using it is like asking questions of a bloke you met in the pub. He might be a nuclear physicist. Or he might be a fruitcake". It also says some pages seem to have been taken over by fanatics , and I guess that's what has happened here. Go for it Supertigerman, fight the good fight and change it to British Open. . Moriori 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There exists a litany of opinions in the Talk pages for Open Championship. Go read all that and you'll have your fill of this debate, one I predict will be endless, annoying and intolerably boring.DocEss 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)==